Court Summons, Virgin only ticket.

[Macclesfield]

Hi, I've lurked here a few times in relation to ticket fares etc.. I never thought I'd be on the receiving end of a penalty, but as is life :roll:

'Summons for travel without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof.'

This was around autumn 2012.

I've just received this summons through the post with a requirement to pay ~£150 court costs if I admit guilt in writing. The other option is to attend court with solicitor and a case.

My story is this: I had just started a new graduate job in Macclesfield after finishing University. This was my second day at the job and I had purchased a Virgin only trains ticket online the night before to collect at the station. I had no idea there operated different train companies with different ticketing systems as I've never ever experienced this before (I am an experienced train user between Manchester/Leeds/Sheffield). I went to work with my ticket from Manchester Piccadilly to Macclesfield via Stockaport. On the way back after work I boarded the next train back from Macclesfield to Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport. This was exactly the same journey, I even assumed it was exactly the same train as the interior/exterior looked like a Virgin Pendalino. This was infact a Cross-Country train. (I'm sure you've had similar stories on this forum, but I searched this subforum and found nothing)

So the conductor came along, I showed my return ticket which was obviously declined. He asked me do I have a valid ticket to which I replied 'No' (I now realised). He then asked me to pay the £8.70 fare single fare to Manchester Piccadilly and I had no option but to refuse. I didn't have enough cash on me to pay the ticket and had no money on my card as I this was my first job after University and I had no money all summer and did't get paid for another month. It is a good paying job so I gave my details assuming some sort of fine....£150 is a lot more than i thought though!

Now, I may be slightly more inclined to pay if the witness statement from the inspector wasn't a pack of lies. I'm not sure whether to post the direct quotes as he may browse these boards and it could identify my case. The gist is that when he informed me I had a non-valid ticket I replied with something along the lines of 'this happens all the time just give me the card like the others'. This is the second time I have ever made this journey and I have never been caught with a non-valid ticket before so why I would say such a thing is beyond me. There are various other tit bits/one liners that make me sound like a real **** which I'm very displeased a court seeing (seeing as none of them are true).

Overall, my main gripe is the 'intent to avoid payment'. I bought a return ticket, therefore I had intended to pay for my return trip. I intended so much that I paid in advance. I boarded the train thinking to my knowledge I had paid and was completely in the right. I did not bring extra cash from home as I assumed I would not need it. Thanks for taking the time to read if you have done so.

Any pointers? Have I ANY leg to stand on at all? ( I feel I dont, but the witness statement stinks and I really don't want to have to admit to all that)

Also, will admitting guilt and paying the fines (just to get it out of my life!) give me a criminal record?

Thanks,

Macclesfield

 

[Stigy]

You say the statement by the staff member is a pack of lies. So exactly what questions were you asked, and were you under caution at all? The caution makes for better evidence in court in proving a case, but isn't necessary for a case to be proved. They'd need to satisfy the Magistrates that you set out to avoid the full payment of your fare, and it wasn't an honest mistake. The statement will need to reflect this, otherwise they won't wind a case under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

From the RPI's point of view, this fare is obviously quite a bit cheaper, and it could be seen as you trying it on to get a cheap journey. Your defence is that you had no idea as you've made the journey only twice so far. They'd need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the offence they are going to court with.

If you admit guilt in court under this act, assuming enough evidence is there and the case isn't withdrawn, will see you gain a hefty fine and costs etc, plus a criminal record. They might choose to downgrade it to an offence under Byelaw 18(1), which is an offence of strict liability meaning no intent to avoid payment is needed. If you plead guilty to this (which you were guilty of even if you weren't aware you were!), although still a criminal offence, there's no record on the police computer of a conviction as it's non-recordable. Also, fine etc is lower to reflect this being more minor.

 

[34D]

What is the date of the alleged offence, and what is the date on the summons - don't give the exact dates on here, but it would help us (to help you) if you can advise how many months between them - example 5 months 3 days between the dates.

Had you not received any prior paperwork from Cross Country? If so what did it say, and how did you respond?

As an aside, there are three different TOC operating on the route Manchester-Leeds (tpe, northern and a bit of grand central) and three operating Manchester-Sheffield (tpe, northern and east midlands trains).

 

[Fare-Cop]

Any pointers? Have I ANY leg to stand on at all? ( I feel I dont, but the witness statement stinks and I really don't want to have to admit to all that)

When you were questioned did the inspector make notes of your answers ?

Did you sign any notes of the conversation and were these an accuarte record of what you said ?

 

[island]

I don't think it is as easy as paying £150 in court costs if you plead guilty in writing. Normally they say £150 will be sought as a contribution to prosecution costs. On top of this would be a fine and a victim surcharge.

Some of the quotes from the witness statement you have been served with do seem very confusing and there might possibly be some chance that an experienced solicitor would be able to obtain a not-guilty verdict by showing you did not intend to avoid payment of your fare. (The other common offence with which you could have been charged would be failing to hand over a valid ticket for inspection, which would have been an unavoidable guilty verdict.)

We do get a number of people on the board saying they went out for the day travelling some distance with absolutely no money on them, nothing in their bank accounts, and no credit card. I always find this difficult to believe, but that's just me.

 

[jopsuk]

In Autumn 2012, the Cross Country train would have been differently coloured to Virgin on the outside. It would also have said "Cross Country" on the outside, and the screens on the platform would almost certainly have said who was operating the train.

 

[Macclesfield]

Thank you for all your help. To answer a few questions; no i was not under caution to my knowledge and there is nothing in the statement to suggest this. No the inspector did not make notes to my knowledge ( although he did go away and come back a few minutes later). No I did not sign anything.

In reference to the train colour, I remember looking the next day and the two trains both had yellow fronts in a sort of 'Y' shape and the seats inside/the layout were very similar ( say compared to a local trains). These were all afterthoughts however as I did not even think for one minute that there was a possibility I was sat with an invalid ticket.


Thanks again.

 

[Realfish]

In Autumn 2012, the Cross Country train would have been differently coloured to Virgin on the outside. It would also have said "Cross Country" on the outside, and the screens on the platform would almost certainly have said who was operating the train.

True but the confusion that passengers have is evidenced by the large numbers of complaints that VT still receive in respect of XC services that they no longer operate.

Not trying to justify, just empathise.

 

[Ferret]

True but the confusion that passengers have is evidenced by the large numbers of complaints that VT still receive in respect of XC services that they no longer operate.

Not trying to justify, just empathise.

That's fair enough, but XC are still entitled to the revenue that they are missing out on by carrying the OP. At the point at which he declined to purchase a ticket having been made aware of what was possibly an honest mistake, he has demonstrated intent to avoid the fare due to XC.

 

[Mark_H]

That's fair enough, but XC are still entitled to the revenue that they are missing out on by carrying the OP. At the point at which he declined to purchase a ticket having been made aware of what was possibly an honest mistake, he has demonstrated intent to avoid the fare due to XC.

I can see that someone getting on a train with no cash or cards could be enough to demonstrate intent, but surely holding a ticket that they thought was valid negates that? (While leaving the lesser strict liability offence)

I can emphasise with the "first job after uni" issue, as I remember moving from a job paid weekly, to a monthly salary in arrears, and finding myself badly skint for that first month.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I can see that someone getting on a train with no cash or cards could be enough to demonstrate intent, but surely holding a ticket that they thought was valid negates that? (While leaving the lesser strict liability offence)

I can emphasise with the "first job after uni" issue, as I remember moving from a job paid weekly, to a monthly salary in arrears, and finding myself badly skint for that first month.

We get lots of people using virgin only tickets between mcr picc and mac/stoke I make it clear that they are not valid but we still get them and people still claim they didn't know. At least xc and virgin look similar

 

[bb21]

I can see that someone getting on a train with no cash or cards could be enough to demonstrate intent, but surely holding a ticket that they thought was valid negates that? (While leaving the lesser strict liability offence)

The question is how far do you go down that line. Technically I don't think there is any allowance to be made for such an excuse.

Should the OP be allowed to get away with using a Virgin Trains Only ticket on XC?
Should someone holding a London Midland Only ticket on XC be allowed to get away with such an excuse?
Should someone holding a TPE Only ticket be allowed to get away with this excuse on an EMT service?

If the answer to the first one is yes then I see a can of worms.

While the seats on the Voyagers and the Pendolinos remain the same in appearance, XC's fleet are now distinctly different to VT's on the outside, and this is in addition to station announcements and PIS displays. VT do not run Voyagers over this section so the internal space would be different too. I appreciate that VT used to run the XC franchise, however it was six years ago and this cannot be an excuse forever.

 

[Mark_H]

I agree that it's a can of worms, but I think that a distinction can be made between full-on "intent to evade", and the lesser offence. It's a fine either way, but avoids labeling a potentially honest mistake as full-on fare evasion, which I would reserve for the guy hiding in the loo or buying a child ticket. I would be genuinely interested to hear what is usually considered sufficient evidence for intent to evade, though.

 

[neilmc]

That's fair enough, but XC are still entitled to the revenue that they are missing out on by carrying the OP. At the point at which he declined to purchase a ticket having been made aware of what was possibly an honest mistake, he has demonstrated intent to avoid the fare due to XC.

I don't think that's true at all - a lot of people go out on the razz or whatever and don't leave a whole load of money in their wallet on the off-chance that they have to use another train operator, which of course they do in this case as Virgin shut up shop mid-evening on the Manchester-Macc line. This isn't the first instance of people being stranded in this way. XC are of course due the revenue but is there no mechanism for claiming it retrospectively without dragging innocent people into court again?

I suppose the answer is, as usual, caveat emptor - passengers should check their timetables, the code for the operator and their ticket conditions and not assume that the TOC they travel in on will be inclined to take them home again later. And familiarise themselves with all the TOCS operating on the line, their various branding and types of train operated, yes just the sort of thing a non-rail-geek needs to know for a simple night out in town!

Very sharp and shabby practice by Virgin too of course but does anyone care?

 

[bb21]

This isn't the first instance of people being stranded in this way.

A bit of a strong word, isn't it?

I'm sure I am not the only one to think that going a fair distance away from home without access to any contingency fund (doesn't need to be a huge amount) is asking for trouble. I know people do it, but doesn't make it a wise move.

 

[Ferret]

I don't think that's true at all - a lot of people go out on the razz or whatever and don't leave a whole load of money in their wallet on the off-chance that they have to use another train operator, which of course they do in this case as Virgin shut up shop mid-evening on the Manchester-Macc line. This isn't the first instance of people being stranded in this way. XC are of course due the revenue but is there no mechanism for claiming it retrospectively without dragging innocent people into court again?

I suppose the answer is, as usual, caveat emptor - passengers should check their timetables, the code for the operator and their ticket conditions and not assume that the TOC they travel in on will be inclined to take them home again later. And familiarise themselves with all the TOCS operating on the line, their various branding and types of train operated, yes just the sort of thing a non-rail-geek needs to know for a simple night out in town!

Very sharp and shabby practice by Virgin too of course but does anyone care?

It's what the law thinks that matters unfortunately, not what you or I think. If you buy a restricted ticket, it is incumbent on you to follow those restrictions. Now, this may have been a genuine mistake, I don't know - but having been made aware of that mistake, and then decline to pay can be constituted *at that point* as intent to avoid the fare. The OP was given an opportunity to pay and did not do so.

There are some who are using these VT only tickets to deliberately evade the full fare; they know what they are doing and are banking on getting away with it. I guess prosecutions are one way of deterring this.

 

[46100ROYALSCOT]

What is the difference in price of a Cross Country ticket and Virgin?

 

[Ferret]

A Virgin Trains only ticket is cheaper than the inter-available fares valid on all operators including XC.

 

[bb21]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1403224#post1403224

No more than a few quid depending on the ticket type. Crosscountry receives no revenue from VIRGIN TRNSONLY fares, for obvious reasons.

 

[neilmc]

A bit of a strong word, isn't it?

I'm sure I am not the only one to think that going a fair distance away from home without access to any contingency fund (doesn't need to be a huge amount) is asking for trouble. I know people do it, but doesn't make it a wise move.

Well, it's exactly the kind of situation I could envisage my own children getting into when they were late-teenagers; buy cheapest ticket, spend all your cash, roll up at Picc just in time for the last train home (and it's only 20 miles or so), XC guard demands extra payment they haven't got, an argument and suddenly decent kids who've made a simple mistake are being hailed as criminals. Not nice and not necessary. Probably happens more than we get to hear of.

 

[Oscar]

Well, it's exactly the kind of situation I could envisage my own children getting into when they were late-teenagers; buy cheapest ticket, spend all your cash, roll up at Picc just in time for the last train home (and it's only 20 miles or so), XC guard demands extra payment they haven't got, an argument and suddenly decent kids who've made a simple mistake are being hailed as criminals. Not nice and not necessary. Probably happens more than we get to hear of.

In my experience most people seem to be let off in these kind of situations on the premise that they will not repeat the mistake.

 

[Ferret]

Well, it's exactly the kind of situation I could envisage my own children getting into when they were late-teenagers; buy cheapest ticket, spend all your cash, roll up at Picc just in time for the last train home (and it's only 20 miles or so), XC guard demands extra payment they haven't got, an argument and suddenly decent kids who've made a simple mistake are being hailed as criminals. Not nice and not necessary. Probably happens more than we get to hear of.

I very much doubt court proceedings would be instigated unless there were aggravating factors such as false details offered in the circumstances you describe.

You could still expect a letter giving you an opportunity to pay the fare owing though, and should that money not be forthcoming - then it would be likely to go to Court. Expired railcard issues are often dealt with in the manner I describe - possibly a similar innocent mistake, but not criminalised until at least 2 opportunities to pay have been passed up.

 

[bb21]

Well, it's exactly the kind of situation I could envisage my own children getting into when they were late-teenagers; buy cheapest ticket, spend all your cash, roll up at Picc just in time for the last train home (and it's only 20 miles or so), XC guard demands extra payment they haven't got, an argument and suddenly decent kids who've made a simple mistake are being hailed as criminals. Not nice and not necessary. Probably happens more than we get to hear of.

The thing is though the OP left himself in that situation, without any resources to purchase the valid ticket with, as an adult. The fare demanded is not a large sum either. This then left the guard with very few options. Whether the guard could have handled it differently is anyone's guess as none of us were there to see what other solution, if any, was offered, and the exact circumstances on the day.

When someone is 16, he/she can probably get away with something like this and indeed the train companies have additional responsibilities to ensure that they are not left in a vulnerable situation. Somewhere down the line, though, the individual has to start taking responsibility for his own actions, and the line at the moment, whether we like it or not, is 18.

The OP made some unwise decisions on the day, and he is at an age considered old enough to start taking responsibility. He gave XC reasons to accuse him of intending to avoid paying the correct fare (partly by refusing to purchase a valid ticket, because he had no money), so unsurprisingly the accusations followed. He can of course try and defend himself if he wants. That doesn't change the fact that there is really no one else to blame for all the palava but himself. At his age, this unfortunately means facing up to the consequences.

With no money on him to pay the correct fare, I am not sure how else XC are supposed to think.

 

[yorkie]

Revenue allocation doesn't determine validity, and if this was a Route: via High Wycombe ticket being used on Virgin, then an excess would apply, despite Virgin getting none of the revenue for the original ticket. So let's not use revenue as an argument. It is the T&Cs that cause the ticket to not be valid, not revenue allocation.

I think it is quite harsh that a new ticket is required when the ticket is not valid due to a restriction that appears in the 'Route' field, given that an excess is usually applies for that situation! The only reason an excess is not applicable in this situation, is the restriction under 'Route' is not geographical. Is there really THAT much difference to justify the ticket having no value at all?

I would very much like to see this tested in court. Could be interesting.

 

[Ferret]

I would very much like to see this tested in court. Could be interesting.

This is not the right case to be suggesting that Yorkie, with all due respect!

 

[6Gman]

Well, it's exactly the kind of situation I could envisage my own children getting into when they were late-teenagers; buy cheapest ticket, spend all your cash, roll up at Picc just in time for the last train home (and it's only 20 miles or so), XC guard demands extra payment they haven't got, an argument and suddenly decent kids who've made a simple mistake are being hailed as criminals. Not nice and not necessary. Probably happens more than we get to hear of.

People (of whatever age) need to take responsibility for their own actions. If they are incapable of doing so should they be out on their own?

The idea of a "Virgin Only" ticket is not obscure!

 

[bb21]

Revenue allocation doesn't determine validity, and if this was a Route: via High Wycombe ticket being used on Virgin, then an excess would apply, despite Virgin getting none of the revenue for the original ticket. So let's not use revenue as an argument. It is the T&Cs that cause the ticket to not be valid, not revenue allocation.

Of course. I wasn't using that as an argument, just an illustration how XC are losing out.

I think it is quite harsh that a new ticket is required when the ticket is not valid due to a restriction that appears in the 'Route' field, given that an excess is usually applies for that situation! The only reason an excess is not applicable in this situation, is the restriction under 'Route' is not geographical. Is there really THAT much difference to justify the ticket having no value at all?

I would very much like to see this tested in court. Could be interesting.

I agree that it probably appears harsh, considering the amount involved. I fear that the differences between what happens whether the restriction is geographical or not, if ironed out, will result in changes in only one direction for the formal procedure.

The potential changes might not be what we want to see.

 

[LexyBoy]

Would I be right in thinking that the guard probably issued a TIR, and that an UFN would have avoided this outcome (assuming it was paid). What is the usual procedure for XC.

I agree that something that appears in the 'route' field should be considered a route for the purposes of excesses, and that revenue distribution should be of no concern to passengers, but also that this isn't the case to test it!

 

[Ferret]

I suspect the only reason that this was TIR'd was that there was insufficient time to do a UFN. Had this myself, where there's 10 minutes between stops - you just haven't the time to write one out.

Although, given that the OP refused to pay for a ticket, would he have accepted a UFN in any case?

 

[island]

Very sharp and shabby practice by Virgin too of course but does anyone care?

Please can you clarify how you feel CrossCountry refusing to accept a ticket which is invalid can constitute sharp practice by Virgin Trains?