Correct process to follow - unable to buy at origin

[SickyNicky]

...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 don't normally wade in on these discussions, but the new "information" box in the NRCoT is quite revealing in how the rail companies expect us to deal with these situations. I would expect this could be weighty evidence in favour of the passenger should a disagreement arise.

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.

 

[island]

You are twisting the words to suit your argument.

So are you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

Yes (the latter) – there is no caselaw saying what exactly a journey is and it is therefore unsafe to advise people authoritatively that they have the right to join a train at station B without a ticket in any case where they arrived from station A where they could not purchase one.

I don't normally wade in on these discussions, but the new "information" box in the NRCoT is quite revealing in how the rail companies expect us to deal with these situations. I would expect this could be weighty evidence in favour of the passenger should a disagreement arise.

Then the question turns on how much is "sufficient" time, which is undefined, and that's before we even look at whether a "journey" was actually valid to start with if the passenger intended to travel on an itinerary which did not meet minimum connection times...

 

[northwichcat]

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.

Do they actually know the ticket selling arrangements for every station or do they just try to catch the people using the more commonly used stations and the people who claim they've travelled from a station where they know RPIs or barriers are in operation?

 

[rs101]

Except that's not what you find in law.





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.


That is your interpretation, not mine.

Don't the delay repay terms define a journey as A to C? Surely the same definition must apply across the board.

Or are you suggesting that I need to buy a ticket at B, no matter if I have to miss a train when doing so. Other posters suggest I could then claim delay repay for doing so..

 

[najaB]

Don't the delay repay terms define a journey as A to C? Surely the same definition must apply across the board.

Delay Repay is not established by legislation. Hence its terms have no standing in criminal matters.

I'd appreciate if someone could point me in the direction of legislation that does establish the definition of 'a journey'. Thanks.

 

[sheff1]

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.

ATOC's intention is documented in the wording below para 6.3 in the recently published NRcoT (my bold):

"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."

Of course it is still not 100% incontrovertible, as "sufficient" is not defined, but I suggest that any reasonable person would understand "sufficient" to mean that there was time to buy the ticket without missing the connecting service. The only discussion should therefore be about the amount of time needed to get to the platform after buying the ticket which will vary in individual cases, not only by the layout of the station (and the knowledge of that layout by the passenger), but by the characteristics of the passenger*.

A starting point for calculating "sufficient time" could be the minimum connection time for the station concerned with added time to get from the ticket office to and through the barriers (if present), which will, again, vary by station.

* For example, a fully fit person with no luggage and good knowledge of the station could make a train from Platform 7 at Sheffield within 90 seconds of picking up the ticket. An equally fit person without the station knowledge would need a bit longer. Someone who could only walk more slowly for age/health reasons or because they had heavy luggage would need probably 4 mins at a minimum and in some cases quite considerably longer.

 

[Failed Unit]

You make a good point with respect that you don't know how long the queue will be either. A nice easy station like Newark north gate you could buy a ticket in the 7 minute connection if the queue was clear. Not sure how many would want to cross the bridge.

In another example you are going from new Southgate- kings cross. Buying at Finsbury Park will be an issue for 2 reasons.

1. Long way to a ticket office you don't know how long it will take to queue for.
2. If you were a fare dodger you now have way past the barriers. You say you want to buy a ticket to Kings across and just leave.

Just an open question would encouraging people to buy at the connecting station make fare evasion worse? On many trains in Lincolnshire guards don't have time to sell to everyone. I am sure at Lincoln the gate staff would send me back to the train. Otherwise everyone would be going to Somewhere else and the leaving the station as they have passed the gate line. But of course facilities exist on the train in that example they don't on some of the others.

 

[sheff1]

Just an open question would encouraging people to buy at the connecting station make fare evasion worse?

It could be a serious possibility in some cases. Take the journey in the OP. You could not expect to get away with asking for a single from Chester at Piccadilly, and shouldn't if buying on board after Chester, but look at the fares (standard single):

From Bache - £17.10

From Chester
Any permitted - £16.70
Via Altrincham - £13.40 Anytime; £12.50 Off Peak
VTWC - £13.20 Anytime; £11.00 Off Peak

Some may be tempted by a 40p 'saving', more may be by the bigger amounts. In cases where the journey into the connecting station is longer and the onward tickets are not route restricted the 'savings' could be very tempting indeed to some people, even those who had not even thought about shortfaring at the outset.

 

[Failed Unit]

Yep. A common flow. Market Rasen - Nottingham the saving is more tempting if you start short at Lincoln. But not worth it if you need to get back to Market Rasen. Longer journeys they are in the same "zone"

 

[island]

Don't the delay repay terms define a journey as A to C? Surely the same definition must apply across the board.

Or are you suggesting that I need to buy a ticket at B, no matter if I have to miss a train when doing so. Other posters suggest I could then claim delay repay for doing so..

DelayRepay is a discretionary system and/or part of the contract between the TOC and the DaFT, so the definition used there has no relevance to criminal law.

I am saying that it is unclear whether or not you commit an offence by failing to buy a ticket at a connecting station when there are facilities to do so.

 

[Fare-Cop]

In relation to my comment that Magistrates & District Judges have, and continue to convict travellers who have been charged with 'intent to avoid a fare' because they have not used facilities at an interchange:

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.

Clearly, District Judges & Magistrates recognise that the length of time the passenger had at the interchange has been taken into consideration by the prosecution before considering action and this has obviously then been considered by the Court. In my experience, any 'contributory negligence' of the traveller will have been an important consideration for the Court.

I believe that in reaching the decision to convict, the Court will have recognised that there can be no generalisation that it is always OK not to pay at an interchange, but that an opportunity existed and the traveller did not take that opportunity and that s/he intended to pay only if challenged.

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.

I agree, it is a fact that there is no legal basis for the oft repeated claim on this forum that 'it is not necessary to delay a journey to buy a ticket at an interchange'.

That is too much of a generalisation and remains a matter of opinion.

To paraphrase NRCoT more accurately, if a traveller qenuinely has not had a previous opportunity to pay, it would be correct to say that "You should always purchase a ticket at the first opportunity, but where a connecting time at an interchange is very short, it is not always necessary to delay that journey to do so".

DelayRepay is a discretionary system and/or part of the contract between the TOC and the DaFT, so the definition used there has no relevance to criminal law.

Clearly correct

I am saying that it is unclear whether or not you commit an offence by failing to buy a ticket at a connecting station when there are facilities to do so.

This seems to have been answered already by the action of the Courts referred to earlier.

Given that the Courts decision is also based on consideration of the legislation under which the charge has been laid, those Courts have clearly accepted that an offence is evident in those cases that have been summonsed.

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?

This is where I believe the confusion has arisen. At no point have I suggested that these convictions have been for allegations of breach of Byelaw.

In each case the conviction has been for 'intent to avoid payment of a fare' and I also quoted the relevant Appeal Court precedent relating to RoRA [1889] in my first post.

.

 

[sheff1]

To paraphrase NRCoT more accurately, if a traveller qenuinely has not had a previous opportunity to pay, it would be correct to say that "You should always purchase a ticket at the first opportunity, but where a connecting time at an interchange is very short, it is not always necessary to delay that journey to do so".

I do not know what you made of my reply, as you have not commented on it, but, based on it, if you delete the word "always" in the above I would agree with that.

I also agree that there can be no generalisation that it is always OK not to pay at an interchange. I don't think many (any?) posters have actually made such a suggestion.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It will be some time before journeys made under the new NRCoT make their way into court. I would be very interested to see any decisions where the key deciding factor was the amount of time available to purchase at an interchange.

 

[jon0844]

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.

If you got off at any station in this example, you'd be delayed, as the train from Moorgate or Old Street served the destination without any change (so no A to B to C), so it was interesting at the time that there was a thought you should alight at the first opportunity to get a ticket and board a later train.

If not Finsbury Park, the alternative would be getting off at Hatfield (the end of my season validity) to get a ticket and then arrive at least 20 minutes later. I didn't consider that fair.

Incidentally, I probably got waved through more often than they charged me - and sometimes had to insist as I wanted to return to Hatfield later!

 

[rs101]

DelayRepay is a discretionary system and/or part of the contract between the TOC and the DaFT, so the definition used there has no relevance to criminal law.

I am saying that it is unclear whether or not you commit an offence by failing to buy a ticket at a connecting station when there are facilities to do so.

As there doesn't appear to be any other definition of a journey within the terms & conditions a traveller agrees to when purchasing a ticket, I'd be extremely surprised if the court didn't accept it as the appropriate definition when considering fare purchase.

Or is it considered acceptable for a single consumer contract to contain contradictory definitions for the same term?

 

[yorkie]

In relation to my comment that Magistrates & District Judges have, and continue to convict travellers who have been charged with 'intent to avoid a fare' because they have not used facilities at an interchange..

I suspect the passengers were not properly represented by suitably knowledgeable solicitors. I recall a time when someone told me that the TOC who was prosecuting their daughter gave up when they realised they were mounting a serious defence; they had dozens of cases to go through and none of the other defendants had any legal representation.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I suspect the passengers were not properly represented by suitably knowledgeable solicitors. I recall a time when someone told me that the TOC who was prosecuting their daughter gave up when they realised they were mounting a serious defence; they had dozens of cases to go through and none of the other defendants had any legal representation.

Your suspicion is misplaced. In more than one of these cases 'suitably knowledgeable solicitors' did represent the defendant.

In at least one example, attempts to convince the TOC to 'accept an alternative resolution' failed and the defence advocate then advised his client to plead guilty.

 

[yorkie]

Provide details then, as I find it difficult to believe our legal system is that bad.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Provide details then, as I find it difficult to believe our legal system is that bad.

You know perfectly well that none of us should ever publish details of individual named cases on this or any other forum, BUT because convictions are already in the public domain, you can find them with a little work.

As I pointed out at the outset, none of these convictions have been the subject of an Appeal Court hearing and thus cannot be relied upon as legal precedent, but if they had, naming would have been automatic.

What I pointed out was the risk that a person who passes an opportunity to pay takes in respect of being reported in contravention of existing criminal legislation

What you have pointed out is part of the advice correctly given in respect of travellers joining trains where facilities to pre-pay are genuinely not available.

There's the difference.

 

[jkdd77]

I'm not disagreeing with FareCop or DaveNewcastle, and greatly value their contributions, but I do think that:
1) Each case would turn enormously on its own facts, for example, if the passenger knows there will likely be no further opportunity to pay after the intermediate station, then that would tend to support the view that that passenger is intending "to pay only if challenged"- .i.e. to evade their fare.

2) In general, having regard to the NRCoT, to the fact that the facts in Corbyn can be distinguished in so many ways from these situations, and to the relevant burden of proof, it would seem unlikely that failure to purchase at an intermediate station, where there was neither any prior opportunity nor any reasonable opportunity to pay at this intermediate station without delaying their journey, constitutes sufficient evidence alone to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the passenger intends to evade their fare.

(In principle, such a passenger is no more guilty of fare evasion than a weekend traveller who boards with a valid standard class ticket, sits in first class as permitted by the published T & Cs of the upgrade, and waits (and intends) to be upgraded at the first opportunity. If they are not upgraded on board, then that would seem to be inadvertent avoidance rather than deliberate evasion. Here, in the OP's scenario, again I would say that the evidence, and the wording of the NRCoT, tends towards the supposition that the OP, in boarding his/ her onward train, is fully intending to pay and has never deviated for a moment from that intention, but is merely acting reasonably so as not to unnecessarily delay their onward journey (which, as an aside, might potentially trigger Delay Repay).

3) However, when the fact of non-purchase at the intermediate station is used together with other evidence, having regard to all the circumstances, including the defendant's words and actions, it may be that the magistrates are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence is made out.

 

[island]

I agree with the immediately above post.

 

[cuccir]

I think it's a fair summary of what we've heard

 

[bnm]

You know perfectly well that none of us should ever publish details of individual named cases on this or any other forum, BUT because convictions are already in the public domain, you can find them with a little work.

You are citing these convictions to back up your side of the debate. It is YOU who should be providing the case details. If you're not prepared to do so then your utterances can only be considered unfounded opinion too.

And why can't individual named case details be published on this, or any other forum? Corbyn has been cited many times here.

 

[Fare-Cop]

And why can't individual named case details be published on this, or any other forum? Corbyn has been cited many times here.

Because Corbyn, like Bremme, Browning and a great many others have been heard by the Appeal Court and can be relied upon and cited as Legal Precedent.

Matters that have been convicted by the lower, Magistrates Courts cannot.

I don't know where you live, but if you are in one of the relevant areas it's quite likely the details were reported in the 'briefs' by your local press

3) However, when the fact of non-purchase at the intermediate station is used together with other evidence, having regard to all the circumstances, including the defendant's words and actions, it may be that the magistrates are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence is made out.

I agree wholly with jkdd77.

Point 3 in jkdd77's post reflects exactly the view taken by Magistrates in the cases that I have knowledge of.
.

 

[FenMan]

I don't know where you live, but if you are in one of the relevant areas it's quite likely the details were reported in the 'briefs' by your local press

Which local press would that be? Methinks you are living in the past. I live in a 300,000 conurbation where what passed for the local press died a few years ago. (I agree this is not good thing).

 

[BurtonM]

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.

Isn't this a moot point, due to barriers? You wouldn't be able to access the train anyway.

I have to wonder what the case/course of action would be if the point of interchange has no ticketing facilities to speak of? This seems to exist for the journey Featherstone-Leeds (changing at Wakefield Kirkgate - both that and Featherstone are unstaffed). Is it as simple as buying a ticket in Leeds and hoping the rent-a-bods don't take exception?

 

[najaB]

I have to wonder what the case/course of action would be if the point of interchange has no ticketing facilities to speak of?

Seems straightforward to me: no option to purchase at origin, no option to purchase at the interchage = buy from guard or pay at destination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to wonder what the case/course of action would be if the point of interchange has no ticketing facilities to speak of? This seems to exist for the journey Featherstone-Leeds (changing at Wakefield Kirkgate - both that and Featherstone are unstaffed). Is it as simple as buying a ticket in Leeds and hoping the rent-a-bods don't take exception?

You have to buy at the first opportunity. It might actually be that if you travel from an unstaffed, TVMless[1] station to an unstaffed station changing at an unstaffed station and the guard doesn't sell tickets on either train. If you do, good luck - you just got a free journey.

[1] Most TVMs don't allow remote issue, and buying short (e.g. doing A-B-C and buying B-C at B) is known to be viewed with suspicion so on most TOCs the only place a TVM is any use is the origin.

 

[bb21]

Isn't this a moot point, due to barriers? You wouldn't be able to access the train anyway.

I have to wonder what the case/course of action would be if the point of interchange has no ticketing facilities to speak of? This seems to exist for the journey Featherstone-Leeds (changing at Wakefield Kirkgate - both that and Featherstone are unstaffed). Is it as simple as buying a ticket in Leeds and hoping the rent-a-bods don't take exception?

Just be careful. Revenue do frequent Kirkgate station as I have seen them a few times selling tickets at the entrance so if you just assume, you might find yourself in a spot of bother, although I see your general point.

 

[pitdiver]

On a slightly different subject. I recently had need to get to Bedford at very short notice. I therefore went to Flitwick T/O to purchase my Priv, Finding it closed? at 1300hrs I had no option but to buy a full price ticket from the TVM. When I got to Bedford I mentioned this to person on the gateline. He said "Go to the Ticket Office they can sort it2 This I did, The Booking Clerk said "No problem" and refunded the difference there and then. GTR did SOMETHING right for a change.