Correct process to follow - unable to buy at origin

[plannerman]

Hi all

This is a hypothetical situation, but one which I'm sure will happen at some point. My local station is Bache, which is unstaffed with one TVM. Fairly often this is not working (it actually has a metal shutter which comes down across it, presumably to stop theft attempts). When travelling on Merseyrail to Liverpool that's fine, they always seem to know about it so buying at destination is ok.

But I often travel the other way, to Manchester via Chester. What happens in the event that the TVM is out of service, if there's no time to buy at Chester (the ticket window is across the footbridge and the Manchester train is back over the footbridge again) and if the guard doesn't come round / is unable to sell tickets on the Manchester train. In that case, the first opportunity to buy would be the friendly RPI's at Manchester Piccadilly, renowned for their helpful customer-focused attitude. Would they believe / take my word that the TVM is broken at a station well off their patch, which presumably they cannot easily check? I would refuse to take a Penalty Fare (if indeed one was offered) as they are for honest mistakes - and no mistake has been made. So what should my approach be? What would happen?

I am worried about this as I have come close a few times - I have always been able to get across the footbridge at Chester, buy and get back but it's been tight. The lack of a TVM at Bache and lack of a visible guard on the Manchester train are frequent enough to worry me that if I could not purchase in Chester for any reason (queue at the window being the obvious) that the above scenario could easily happen.

Any thoughts?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you have a smartphone? If so, taking a photograph of the non-working TVM would be sensible.

You are not required to miss a connection to buy a ticket if one wasn't available at your origin (though if you've got time, you should buy one). The contracted security muppets may not realise this, but hopefully Northern's Penalty Fake department should.

FWIW, if you are ever offered a genuine statutory PF it is probably sensible to accept it, pay it and appeal it, however wrong that may seem. The process is much simpler than fighting a prosecution attempt. However PFs are not relevant here as Northern do not issue them (by the Act) - rather their £80 out of court settlements.

 

[185]

Hi all

But I often travel the other way, to Manchester via Chester. What happens in the event that the TVM is out of service, if there's no time to buy at Chester (the ticket window is across the footbridge and the Manchester train is back over the footbridge again) and if the guard doesn't come round / is unable to sell tickets on the Manchester train. .... I would refuse to take a Penalty Fare (if indeed one was offered) as they are for honest mistakes - and no mistake has been made. So what should my approach be? What would happen?

Any thoughts?

I would use station help point if neither TVMs are working and speak to ME Control - no surprises... Bache hasn't even got a help point! lol. In the absence of that, once on the train I'd call Retail Controller on 0151 702 2704[1] cover your back - all calls are recorded, explain to them your reason for calling ie- being at risk from STM doing something silly. As suggested above, a photo of the TVM is helpful too.

[1] This number is publicly available here: http://www.merseyrail.org/plan-your-journey/assisted-travel.aspx

...If you would like to arrange travel outside of these hours or at weekends please call 0151 702 2704...

 

[sheff1]

The first opportunity at Piccadilly would normally be the "buy tickets here" desk at the end of platform 11. If you ignore that and go straight to the exit, you could have a problem.

If you tell them at the desk that you have come from Bache and they will not issue a ticket but refer you to the 'RPIs' then it really is a matter of play it by ear. What I would do would vary according to a number of things which could be different on different days. I will not, therefore, recommend one approach.

What I will say, though, is that if you are really worried, and time is not of the essence, then you could consider alighting at Oxford Rd. There is a proper excess window there and the staff generally seem far more relaxed than at Piccadilly.

 

[shredder1]

"renowned for their helpful customer-focused attitude" love it, lol

 

[Steveoh]

If it's a journey that you make regularly and you know when you are going to make it, could you buy your next ticket in advance using a booking office?

 

[Merseysider]

It's quite simple.

If the Bache TVM isn't working, and purchasing a ticket at Chester would risk missing the connection, you can't be penalised for paying at the next opportunity, regardless of whether that's on-train or at Manchester.

6.3 You must have in your possession a valid Ticket before you board a train unless one of the following circumstances applies:
(a) At the station where you start your journey, there is no means of purchasing a Ticket, either because there is no Ticket office open or self-service Ticket machine in working order...

In [this] case, you must, as soon as you are reasonably able, buy an appropriate Ticket to complete your journey. The price of the Ticket you purchase will be the same as if you had bought a Ticket at the station from which you first departed.

INFORMATION: This means that you should buy a ticket from the conductor on the train if there is one available; at an interchange station provided there is sufficient time before your connecting service; or, if neither of these is possible, at your destination.

If you run into any trouble with the clowns at Piccadilly, this section of the Conditions should be all that's needed to cover your back.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they did try to prosecute it'd almost be worth letting it get all the way to Court so you could watch them get laughed out and hit with costs.

 

[Starmill]

The guard on the AW train will sell you a ticket. I very very much doubt they would hassle you for not having one, and they will not hide in their cab. That said they could suffer machine failure, or depending on the time of day they may not be able to get down the train to serve you which are the only reasons I can think you might get to Piccadilly without one. In general, if you name a station they've never heard of (and I suspect Bache will fall into this category) most of the revenue staff at Piccadilly will just sell a ticket too. Note that they cannot (yet) issue Penalty Fares. Try not worry too much!

 

[Fare-Cop]

If they did try to prosecute it'd almost be worth letting it get all the way to Court so you could watch them get laughed out and hit with costs.

That MAY happen although the NRCoT does not overrule the National Railway Bylaws and other legislation, so you would be relying on Magistrates and Legal Advisors interpreting 'opportunity to pay' in the same way as you.

Whilst it cannot be relied on by TOC prosecutors as 'precedent' because so far as I am aware the 'fail to take an opportunity at an interchange' hasn't been tested by a higher Court, there are a number of examples of cases where District Judges and Magistrates have taken a different view and have convicted because they believed that the traveller had time and an opportunity to declare and pay for their journey, but did not do so.

The judgment in Corbyn (1978) has usually been considered relevant by Legal Advisors in these cases

As Neil Williams says, you may succeed in defeating any charge, but being pro-active in seeking opportunity to pay at the earliest time is the best way of avoiding any risk.

 

[gray1404]

When you are boarding your Manchester bound train, perhaps you could have a word with the guard if he/she is visible so that they can pop out their cab and sell you the ticket on departure.

 

[Welshman]

The guard on the AW train will sell you a ticket. I very very much doubt they would hassle you for not having one, and they will not hide in their cab. That said they could suffer machine failure, or depending on the time of day they may not be able to get down the train to serve you which are the only reasons I can think you might get to Piccadilly without one. In general, if you name a station they've never heard of (and I suspect Bache will fall into this category) most of the revenue staff at Piccadilly will just sell a ticket too. Note that they cannot (yet) issue Penalty Fares. Try not worry too much!

In my experience, there is nearly always a full ticket check on ATW after leaving Chester, and especially if a new conductor has joined there. I've often had my ticket checked twice - west of Chester by the conductor finishing at Chester, and east of Chester by the one taking-over.

If the train has been rammed from Chester, which is sometimes the case if a 175[0], or even worse, a 150, is subbing for a 175[1], I have known the conductor just pass down the train asking if anyone needs to buy a ticket before arriving at Manchester.

 

[Failed Unit]

On a related but slightly different can you buy national rail tickets at Moorgate and old street? The old street ticket office is closed now and the TVMs I see are all LUL

Never tried but don't know what the correct process is if i want an extension as getting off and queuing at Finsbury Park isn't desirable.

 

[Starmill]

It depends on your destination. The LU machines will sell tickets to a lot of places but not everywhere. I think they will sell you a ticket to almost everywhere that has trains from Moorgate, I certainly bought a ticket to Baldock from them once.

 

[island]

The prices on the LUL POMs to National Rail destinations can be quite random.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't have anything new to add to this incident, but can confirm my agreement with the quote below by Fare-Cop (which refers to the often quoted dispensation to the requirement to have entered into a contract to be carried by rail with a ticket when doing so risks missing a connection) that for all the repetition on here, for all the bluster by those who believe it to be true, for all the confirmation by industry personnel who are confident in what is intended, and for all those working on 'the front line' with experience of 'custom and practice', and for all the claims that there are many others who make the same claim as themselves, it is, as Fare-Cop states, a matter of fact :-

. . . the 'fail to take an opportunity at an interchange' hasn't been tested by a higher Court, there are a number of examples of cases where District Judges and Magistrates have taken a different view and have convicted because they believed that the traveller had time and an opportunity to declare and pay for their journey, but did not do so.

The judgment in Corbyn (1978) has usually been considered relevant by Legal Advisors in these cases

I admire the support given on here to passengers who are found to be travelling without a ticket, and am impressed by the expertise demonstrated by many of the replies. But, regrettably, the basis for supporting the claim that it is not necessary to delay a journey in order to form a contract to do so (buying the ticket at an intermediate station) does not exist in law (i.e. in jurisprudence). I agree with Fare-Cop.

 

[yorkie]

There is no requirement for the customer to delay their journey at any intermediate station.

I am disappointed the rail industry continues to promise to completely clarify this matter, yet not actually do so, and I am pushing for that clarification to be made publicly available, because it is most unhelpful that people try to claim that people should be delaying their journeys, when I know that is not the interpretation or intention of ATOC.

 

[Starmill]

which refers to the often quoted dispensation to the requirement to have entered into a contract to be carried by rail with a ticket

The thing you have wrong here is that you claim it's a 'dispensation' when nobody here does. And neither do the rest of the groups you claim 'repeat' this. We all claim it's following the conditions and laws without a need for some kind of 'dispensation'.


Unless you've some kind of evidence that it's not, you're clearly twisting the case out of all reason.

I admire the support given on here to passengers who are found to be travelling without a ticket

Can you present an example? This is a serious accusation, and furthermore a breach of forum rules. I'd encourage you to report such a post.

It's not something I can say I've ever seen though, so it seems a little off-topic in this thread.

 

[Fare-Cop]

There is no requirement for the customer to delay their journey at any intermediate station.

Until the Department for Transport amends the Byelaw or some other formal dispensation is put in place, this remains a matter of opinion and the remainder of your post confirms that to be the case.

I am disappointed the rail industry continues to promise to completely clarify this matter, yet not actually do so, and I am pushing for that clarification to be made publicly available, because it is most unhelpful that people try to claim that people should be delaying their journeys, when I know that is not the interpretation or intention of ATOC.

Yorkie is right, there is no Byelaw amendment by DfT nor any announcement by ATOC that confirms that a traveller without a ticket may pass a facility to pay during their journey without risking the prosecutions that continue to be successfully upheld by the Courts. It would be helpful for all if such evidence existed, but to date, it does not.

In my opinion (which I believe to be equal for all forum users) until such formal confirmation exists, advising travellers to take that risk is very poor advice.

The penalties currently meted out by Courts who have convicted in such cases will confirm that.

Like Yorkie, Starmill, DaveNewcastle and others, I will be grateful if anyone can show documentary evidence of ATOC's intention and/or a DfT pronouncement on the subject, in order that we can direct prosecutors accordingly.

In my experience, there is no intention to unfairly prosecute anyone and there should be no intention, whether directly or by implication, to advise travellers to make journeys without paying either.

The process, when entered into, allows many opportunities for assessment of the facts and where opportunity to pay has genuinely not existed, prosecution of a Byelaw offence will not succeed and should not be instigated, but at all other times the likelihood of a Court interpretation that there has been a wilful act in omitting to pay remains a very real possibility.

I refer to the RRA (1889) offence here, not a Byelaw prosecution, so the risk carries a higher penalty on conviction. (I'm not a fan of prosecuting strict liability Byelaw offences for the sake of it, although there are times when a TOC might consider it justified.)

 

[jon0844]

On a related but slightly different can you buy national rail tickets at Moorgate and old street? The old street ticket office is closed now and the TVMs I see are all LUL

Never tried but don't know what the correct process is if i want an extension as getting off and queuing at Finsbury Park isn't desirable.

When the ticket office was open at Old Street, they couldn't do extensions and Wagn, then FCC, didn't have machines. I assume GTR hasn't put in any.

I had to get my extension at the other end, in my case WGC having wanted an extension from Hatfield. Most times I had no issue. Some times I got into a debate, and once I was penalty fared as the RPI didn't believe what I said and insisted Old Street could sell the ticket. An appeal I won with ease, but didn't stop the RPI then having it in for me until he was moved.

It's annoying that the new machines GTR are installing don't do extensions anymore either.

 

[island]

There is no requirement for the customer to delay their journey at any intermediate station.

Repeating an assertion ad nauseam until those refuting it are too bored/tired/busy to continue to do so does not make the assertion true.

 

[yorkie]

Repeating an assertion ad nauseam until those refuting it are too bored/tired/busy to continue to do so does not make the assertion true.

Yet you are unable to refute it.

Because you know that the principle of paying at the first opportunity on a journey is absolutely correct; and that a journey doesn't have to be needlessly delayed en-route.

Repeating condemnation of the truth doesn't make the truth wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When the ticket office was open at Old Street, they couldn't do extensions and Wagn, then FCC, didn't have machines. I assume GTR hasn't put in any.

I had to get my extension at the other end, in my case WGC having wanted an extension from Hatfield. Most times I had no issue. Some times I got into a debate, and once I was penalty fared as the RPI didn't believe what I said and insisted Old Street could sell the ticket. An appeal I won with ease, but didn't stop the RPI then having it in for me until he was moved..

Yes, I remember those disputes. Some people erroneously think you should have delayed your journey intermediately to buy a ticket, but you were absolutely 100% in the right.

It reminds me of the contractual right to use two or more fares for one journey, where a small number of people used to claim I was wrong, and then the Advance Fare FAQs proved me right. I hope we don't have to wait long for another repeat of that outcome, because people claiming you and I are wrong, when we are obviously right, is rather tiring/boring.

 

[island]

Yet you are unable to refute it.

Because you know that the principle of paying at the first opportunity on a journey is absolutely correct; and that a journey doesn't have to be needlessly delayed en-route.

I don't need to refute it; DaveNewcastle and FareCop already have. Nevertheless, here's the fact. You won't find it in the law that a passenger is exempted from the Railway Byelaws' requirement to hold a ticket when joining a train at a station because he arrived at the station by train less than some arbitrarily-defined amount of time before the onward train was scheduled to depart.

 

[Starmill]

I don't need to refute it; DaveNewcastle and FareCop already have. Nevertheless, here's the fact. You won't find it in the law that a passenger is exempted from the Railway Byelaws' requirement to hold a ticket when joining a train at a station because he arrived at the station by train less than some arbitrarily-defined amount of time before the onward train was scheduled to depart.

I don't understand. What you find in law is that the passenger must buy a ticket as soon as they are able to do so. Your interpretation of this makes very little sense to me, because it would mean that if the train with passengers onboard who have no tickets because they joined at one of hundreds of stations where they are not available subsequently calls at a station with an open ticket office, everyone onboard is legally required to alight and buy a ticket there.

In fact, I did once have a guard present exactly this argument to me. He said that I was not entitled to a railcard discount because the train's previous call had been at a station with an open ticket office, despite my having boarded at a station where it isn't possible to buy a ticket. But not once have I heard any of the current contributors to this thread try to argue for this. Why is that?

I'm far from convinced there is good legal analysis going on in this thread. Nobody has imagined the consequences of applying the law in the way they are claiming, and nobody has any evidence that the train companies interpret the law in the way that you do - despite quite a bit to the contrary. I'll start you off: perhaps the train companies would not like to interpret the law in the way you have, because it would increase their exposure to 'Delay Repay' claims.

On a final note, valid travel itineraries are anything but arbitrary. They are clearly codified.

Until the Department for Transport amends the Byelaw or some other formal dispensation is put in place, this remains a matter of opinion and the remainder of your post confirms that to be the case.

It's a good job we live in a world where knowledge is still considered more important than opi- nevermind.

 

[island]

I don't understand. What you find in law is that the passenger must buy a ticket as soon as they are able to do so.

Except that's not what you find in law.

In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if: (i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or (ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or (iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket

What's open to interpretation is, effectively, whether a passenger travelling from A to C, changing at B is making a journey from A to C, or two journeys, one from A to B and one from B to C –*and the subsidiary question of whether/under what circumstances a passenger needs to seek to obtain a ticket at B if it is the case that A does not have ticketing facilities and B does. I'm not aware of any case law on the subject. Therefore, it is foolish, and indeed bad advice, for members to suggest to readers that they are safe from prosecution under the above Byelaw if they don't have "a lot" of time between trains at B, whatever "a lot" might be.

Your interpretation of this makes very little sense to me, because it would mean that if the train with passengers onboard who have no tickets because they joined at one of hundreds of stations where they are not available subsequently calls at a station with an open ticket office, everyone onboard is legally required to alight and buy a ticket there.

That is your interpretation, not mine.

 

[Starmill]

What's open to interpretation is, effectively, whether a passenger travelling from A to C, changing at B is making a journey from A to C, or two journeys, one from A to B and one from B to C –*and the subsidiary question of whether/under what circumstances a passenger needs to seek to obtain a ticket at B if it is the case that A does not have ticketing facilities and B does.

When did the issue become about the definition of a journey? This is the first time I have seen it mentioned. So your argument is that by changing trains, the passenger has started a new journey and must therefore use the facilities to buy a ticket at the station where they change trains, because under 18.1 that is the start of a journey? Or at least that this may be the case, and therefore everyone should assume so until such time as it has been made more clear?

That is your interpretation, not mine.

Well that's not true; something so ludicrous would never have occurred to me. But I am not 'legally-minded'.

 

[yorkie]

I don't need to refute it; DaveNewcastle and FareCop already have.

They clearly have not.

Nevertheless, here's the fact. You won't find it in the law that a passenger is exempted from the Railway Byelaws' requirement to hold a ticket when joining a train at a station because he arrived at the station by train less than some arbitrarily-defined amount of time before the onward train was scheduled to depart.

You are twisting the words to suit your argument.

The byelaws actually state:-

18 (3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if
(i)there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket a t the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;

In the circumstances described:

Hi all

This is a hypothetical situation, but one which I'm sure will happen at some point. My local station is Bache, which is unstaffed with one TVM. Fairly often this is not working....

plannerman is not in breach of the Byelaws if there was no facility to buy at Bache.

Please, can we end this now?

 

[cuccir]

It strikes me that there are two points of contestation.

First, FareCop states that

there are a number of examples of cases where District Judges and Magistrates have taken a different view and have convicted because they believed that the traveller had time and an opportunity to declare and pay for their journey, but did not do so.

This seems an important point - there's no definition of what a reasonable delay might consist (0 minutes?3?7?10?15?), and there are cases where this has turned a magistate's understanding as to what happened.

I admire the support given on here to passengers who are found to be travelling without a ticket, and am impressed by the expertise demonstrated by many of the replies. But, regrettably, the basis for supporting the claim that it is not necessary to delay a journey in order to form a contract to do so (buying the ticket at an intermediate station) does not exist in law (i.e. in jurisprudence). I agree with Fare-Cop.

This is more of a matter of fact - there is no legal precedent for the idea that it is not necessary to delay a journey to buy a ticket. This claim seems uncontroversial. What it doesn't mean is that either in genral, or if you have a good solicitor, that they can't get someone out of such a situation: but the statement seems self-evident, but also crucially different from FareCop's.

 

[jkdd77]

One could equally say that there is no binding precedent that a passenger who has boarded at a station with no purchase facilities must delay their journey to purchase a ticket.

Individual cases will turn on their own facts, so past convictions may not be mistaken or erroneous if the magistrates decided that the passenger could in fact have bought a ticket either at the intermediate station without delaying their journey, on the previous train, on a subsequent train, or at their destination station. For example, I agree that a passenger with a twenty minute connection who does not buy a ticket at that intermediate station likely shows intent to pay 'only when challenged', and there is little doubt that such a passenger commits an offence if they attempt to leave their staffed destination station without buying a ticket.

Such a journey remains one journey, commencing from a station with no purchase facilities, so it would never be a byelaw offence- it would be s5. RRA or nothing.

The NRCoT may not "override" the RRA, but it would be profoundly perverse to interpret the RRA in such a way that the requirement of "reasonably able" contained in the binding contract between the passenger and the TOC is effectively disregarded. I disagree that there is no basis in law to say that it is not necessary that a passenger must delay their journey in order to buy a ticket- it is plainly contained in contract law in the form of Condition 6(3) the NRCoT.

This is all the more so since:
1) the intent to evade the fare must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard;
2) there is case law that any ambiguity in laws creating criminal offences must be read in the way most favourable to the defendant;
3) to interpret the fare evasion offence so broadly, for doing something which the NRCoC permits, is quite extraordinary, leaving honest passengers with convictions for an offence which is deemed to involve dishonesty, and to reward the TOCs for their failure to provide adequate purchase facilities by then allowing them to profit by demanding lucrative and profitable ransoms in lieu of prosecution. This would be perverse and contrary to public policy.

In Corbyn it was held:

It is clear on the facts that he did not intend to pay the proper fare unless and until the railway authorities tracked him down and requested payment. That is quite enough to constitute an intent to avoid payment. It is perfectly plain that he had no intention of paying unless London Transport pursued him for the money. His intention was not an unqualified intention to make the prescribed payment, but an intention not to pay unless later requested to pay. That is an intention to avoid payment.

A passenger cannot be said to be showing "intent to pay when challenged" solely because they are acting reasonably in catching a connecting train without delaying their journey as envisaged by the NRCoT. On the contrary, (unless the specific facts of the case prove otherwise), they likely retain "an unqualified intention to make the prescribed payment at the first reasonable opportunity", especially if they actively approach the guard on the first connecting train with money in hand. At any rate, having regard to the failure of the TOC to provide purchase facilities at the origin station, or presumably on the first train, no reasonable person could possibly conclude that the requisite intent is proven beyond reasonable doubt *solely* by virtue of not wishing to unnecessarily delay their journey. This is all the more so since the contract (the NRCoT) provides for this situation so a passenger can hardly be said to be showing 'intent to pay only if challenged' for doing that which the contract expressly envisages.

 

[Failed Unit]

I must admit that time point is an interesting can of worms.

2. Examples the Moorgate - Welwyn Garden city where you have a chance to buy an excess at Finsbury Park. The delay this will incur in life is small, but probably enough to entitle you do delay repay as you were held up by something within the railways control.

saxilby - Market rasen. Could incur a delay of over 2 hours should you need to buy at Lincoln. Extreme but i don't think anyone would think that is reasonable. Saying that no one would try an prosecute some for doing it this. The guards in the area frequently have this very situation.