CrossCountry Prosecution article (Guardian)

[telstarbox]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/12/train-rail-commute-ticket-valid-penalty

This article claims that a commuter was given a criminal record, and subsequently had a job offer withdrawn, for asking for a short fare on a CrossCountry service.

It was a moment of madness she puts down to a sleepless night and a stressful journey to work. But jumping on a train without a ticket because of a queue at the machine – compounded by giving a false address to the ticket inspector – has left Lorna Dixon* with a criminal record and out of work after a job offer was withdrawn.

The 58-year-old, the sole wage earner in her family, is "unemployed and possibly unemployable" after being prosecuted and fined £400 over the one-off incident on a Leeds to Sheffield train, which, she says, effectively involved a shortfall of 40p. She is the first to admit she was at fault, but argues "the penalty seems way out of proportion".



... that day, "for some silly reason", she asked for a return from Leeds to Sheffield rather than from her village station to Sheffield. "I don't know why ... I can only put it down to momentary confusion because I had got on at Leeds, the stress from the running and standing, and some personal issues," she says. When challenged about how she had got on at Leeds without a ticket, Dixon says she became embarrassed and replied that she had walked through.

*not real name

 

[tony6499]

I wonder why so many people suffer from confusion over where they got on and every time it is to their financial advantage and never further away from where they really boarded ?

That's interesting it went to prosecution and there was no out of court settlement offered if it was a first occasion

 

[Haywain]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/12/train-rail-commute-ticket-valid-penalty

This article claims that a commuter was given a criminal record, and subsequently had a job offer withdrawn, for asking for a short fare on a CrossCountry service.

I read that article, and I feel there are a couple of bits missing from the account - namely letters from Transport Investigations between the journey and the court appearance. Or possibly some previous cases that are not mentioned. We see regularly here that out of court settlements are regularly the result of such cases.

One might also speculate that some of the 'facts' of the case don't add up. The difference was 40p? The connection was 4 minutes? I can't see where she could have come from that she would only save 40p (my guess being that the origin station was on the Ilkley line).

And, by the way, the full article points out that Lorna Dixon is not her real name.

 

[alastair]

Surely allowing 4 min connecting time at Leeds is amazingly optimistic! GBTT states 10 min is minimum.

 

[bb21]

Allowing only 4 minutes for a connection is her choice, so she has no one to blame. Catch an earlier train if she didn't want to be running everywhere and stressing herself that she'd be late for work.

All I see is excuses, excuses, and more excuses.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

What sort of numbskull would aim to catch a train with a 4 minute connection at Leeds? I commuted into Leeds on the pretty regular Airedale Line and could never guarantee a connection like that. Surely get an earlier train and allow more time to connect, particularly since as the article says, there is not much after that service.

I love the way the paper tries to make out that the railways are somehow to blame for this 'nightmare' commute. If you choose to make long commutes by train, they are never fun, but anyone sensible would allow plenty of lag time and just get up earlier.

As mentioned above, there must surely have been offers to pay before it went to prosecution, unless this is not a first time thing...

 

[Greenback]

Presumably she jumped on the train because of a queue at her station of origin? She then jumped on another train at Leeds, completely forgot where she had come from, became embarrassed and confused when asked a relatively straightforward question. Following this she panicked and decided to pretend she was someone else?

Forgive me if I have little sympathy with someone who produces this as a defence.

I see she has also blamed the railway for making her quit her job. If it entailed such a ridiculous commute with a four minute connection, she surely could have asked not to work in Sheffield? As her employers were paying it sounds as though it was voluntary rather than contractual that she worked there.

It seems that TOC's can't win. Whether they choose to prosecute or settle out of court they are criticised.

 

[Deerfold]

I see she has also blamed the railway for making her quit her job. If it entailed such a ridiculous commute with a four minute connection, she surely could have asked not to work in Sheffield? As her employers were paying it sounds as though it was voluntary rather than contractual that she worked there.

Yes, it sounded as if she'd been sacked. Is there a chance she'd have enough of this commute anyway?

 

[yorkie]

Very dumb thing to do.

If she had simply given the correct name of the station, she'd have either been sold the appropriate or full fare for the journey (depending on the facilities available at the origin).

No-one should be asking for a ticket with an origin of Leeds on-board a train (except in conjunction with another ticket/pass of course!)

 

[gordonthemoron]

No-one should be asking for a ticket with an origin of Leeds on-board a train (except in conjunction with another ticket/pass of course!)

ofcourse not, however you may do it if you weren't paying attention due to some distraction

 

[Greenback]

Yes, it sounded as if she'd been sacked. Is there a chance she'd have enough of this commute anyway?

Well, I wouldn't have enjoyed it that's for sure! I may have done it once or twice if my boss asked nicely, but the article states she did it two or three times a week. Why she agreed to do this is beyond me, and I figure there's quite a lot missing from the story.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ofcourse not, however you may do it if you weren't paying attention due to some distraction

I wonder what sort of a distraction could cause a regular traveller on that route to completely forget where she started the journey she does two or three times a week, then forget who she is, then remember everything and seek out the TM to confess and ask to pay a fine?

 

[455driver]

This thread smells of cow manure!

There is probably more missing from her statement of facts than she has bothered to include!

 

[34D]

Why can't she be named? Can anyone find court reports from the day?

 

[455driver]

Why can't she be named? Can anyone find court reports from the day?

To protec the lieing, guilty party!

If she was named it wouldnt take much to look up the rest of the relevant facts in the case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why can't she be named? Can anyone find court reports from the day?

To protect the lying, guilty party!

If she was named it wouldnt take much to look up the rest of the relevant facts in the case.

 

[Tracky]

ofcourse not, however you may do it if you weren't paying attention due to some distraction

Fair point, but why give a false address.




I hate it when people say "I am the first to admit I was at fault" when they fail to admit it until they have been caught out and boxed into a corner...

 

[yorkie]

ofcourse not, however you may do it if you weren't paying attention due to some distraction

I agree if it was an infrequent journey but it says "from her village station", so it's rather less likely to be a valid defence, unless she has some medical condition.

There have been times when I've not immediately remembered the station I want the ticket to be issued from or, more commonly, where I want the ticket to be issued to! But that's because I make all sorts of 'ad-hoc' journeys and not infrequently cycle or walk between stations. Sometimes I end up at stations I don't even know how to pronounce. e.g. Llanhilleth. This isn't the same as travelling from your own local station.

Well, unless you recently moved, in which case a case could be won on that basis (and, indeed, was in the case of Jennifer Burton vs Northern)

But I think it's a reasonable assumption that such possible defences are unlikely to apply to the case described.

 

[Flamingo]

If she was that forgetful and disorganised, she is probably pretty-much unemployable and the company were looking for a reason to get rid of her anyway...

Then again, it might be early-onset dementia, and she'll qualify for medical disability benefits...

 

[gingerheid]

I'm a bit of a space cadet early in the mornings, but I always remember at least one out of who I am, where I live, and what my journey to work is. :roll:

 

[Flamingo]

I've just realised, the original story left out "the RPI was rude and aggressive ...", and does not use the word "jobs worth" anywhere.

Cutting edge journalism there, congratulations!

 

[Hellfire]

Why can't she be named? Can anyone find court reports from the day?

She could have been named because the case was heard in a Magistrates court to which the press have access. Obviously The Guardian agreed with her not to put her real name in the article as one of the conditions for getting her co-operation to write it. The bare facts of this case of fare evasion would not have made much of a story.

The Guardian could just have reported the outcome of the court case but seemingly wanted to use it to take a pop at the TOC. The Guardian doesn't like private enterprise much.

Would love to see the court records though.

 

[Deerfold]

If she was that forgetful and disorganised, she is probably pretty-much unemployable and the company were looking for a reason to get rid of her anyway...

Then again, it might be early-onset dementia, and she'll qualify for medical disability benefits...

Where does it say they were looking to get rid of her? She quit because of her commute.

 

[Greenback]

Where does it say they were looking to get rid of her? She quit because of her commute.

It doesn't. Flamingo is guessing that if she really was as confused, bewildered, disorganised and forgetful as she claims she was on that day, when she was actually in work rather than on the way, she wouldn't have been very good at her job and so her organisation would have been glad to get rid of her. Or rather, to let her go.

We only have her word that she quit, and that this was down to the commute. Bear in mind the article, in which I assume she had a lot of input, also said she was affected by personal matters at the time.

I would say that the article is a heavily sanitised version designed to place her in the best possible light. Posts like Flamingo's are supposition but intended to provide a different, but still possible interpretation of events.

 

[Geronimo]

I've just realised, the original story left out "the RPI was rude and aggressive ...", and does not use the word "jobs worth" anywhere.

Cutting edge journalism there, congratulations!

Ah but assuming that fare evasion is an economic decision (and on average, it must be) motivated by a positive expected return (perceived positive really) then everything that makes the fare evaders realise that they have severely underestimated the negative cost and that the expected return is actually negative ("fines", court, criminal record, loss of income etc ...) is an excellent thing for the industry, no?

How many fare evaders reading that article have suddenly realised the possible consequences of their behaviour?

Anyway, hiya, new forum member, came here looking for info on the recent large out-of-court settlement, found loads of interesting stuff, and decided to join.

Gero

 

[Matt Taylor]

No-one should be asking for a ticket with an origin of Leeds on-board a train (except in conjunction with another ticket/pass of course!)

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I sell tickets with an origin point of Waterloo practically on a daily basis. People use ignorance ignorance as a pretence "I didn't know my Oyster wasn't valid to Godalming" etc.

 

[Flamingo]

Ah but assuming that fare evasion is an economic decision (and on average, it must be) motivated by a positive expected return (perceived positive really) then everything that makes the fare evaders realise that they have severely underestimated the negative cost and that the expected return is actually negative ("fines", court, criminal record, loss of income etc ...) is an excellent thing for the industry, no?

How many fare evaders reading that article have suddenly realised the possible consequences of their behaviour?

Anyway, hiya, new forum member, came here looking for info on the recent large out-of-court settlement, found loads of interesting stuff, and decided to join.

Gero

Hi, welcome!

It's true there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I would say that the answer to your question about how many fare evaders have been discouraged is the square root of bugger all!

 

[jon0844]

I've just realised, the original story left out "the RPI was rude and aggressive ..."

Well, given it's the Guardian it might have been written "nude and progressive" instead.

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I sell tickets with an origin point of Waterloo practically on a daily basis. People use ignorance ignorance as a pretence "I didn't know my Oyster wasn't valid to Godalming" etc.

When I went to Gatwick the other day, an RPI jumped into action after leaving East Croydon and got a tourist with an Oyster almost straight away. However, he used discretion and just charged her £4.50 for a single.

Made me wonder if there's a trick in pretending you're a confused tourist, and speaking broken English.

 

[Flamingo]

Well, given it's the Guardian it might have been written "nude and progressive" instead.

Very good!

Made me wonder if there's a trick in pretending you're a confused tourist, and speaking broken English.

I had somebody in 1st trying this once. Unfortunately for them, I had clocked them chatting - in English - on their mobile, in the quiet carriage, before we left!

 

[tbtc]

A frustrating version of events - partly because the newspaper (and commenters) don't seem to appreciate The Rules - e.g. a four minute connection at Leeds would never be okay regardless of whether you already had a ticket.

Also frustrating to see the reaction of commentators along the lines of "this would never have happened in the good old days of BR when the friendly ticket collector would simply have given you a clip round the ear, whereas these modern Jobsworths are hellbent on taking you to court for sitting in the wrong seat".

The "£43,000" case is going to get used as a benchmark on arguments like this from now on, isn't it - the idea that this "Banker" got away with it, the idea that there's one rule for the rich, the idea that "my crime was much less than that, so I shouldn't be prosecuted" - I'm certainly not saying that I agree with these sentiments, but they are probably going to take some shifting in the public consciousness - it's not what happened that matters but what was reported and what people actually remember (in our short attention span / 24hr news cycle world).

Can't blame the member of staff - if a passenger has no ticket, gives a false origin station, gives a false address... what else are you going to do?

hiya, new forum member, came here looking for info on the recent large out-of-court settlement, found loads of interesting stuff, and decided to join.

Gero

Welcome to the Forum - hope you find it as useful as I have - the "disputes" section can be very eye opening - a lot of cases aren't as "black and white" as newspapers make them out to be!

(the only frustrating thing about this bit of the Forum is that a lot of the time, once people realise that they are in the wrong they give up and stop posting, so we don't know what settlement they reached with the relevant TOC - if any - "come for the fares information, stay for the arguments about electrifying some poorly served branchline..."

 

[Stigy]

I wonder why so many people suffer from confusion over where they got on and every time it is to their financial advantage and never further away from where they really boarded ?

That's interesting it went to prosecution and there was no out of court settlement offered if it was a first occasion

There was more than one offence, therefore they probably thought a settlement wasn't appropriate in this case. It's almost comical reading the article.....Even if she is being honest and it was a moment of madness, it's clear how it'll look to staff and magistrates.

How the article lures the reader in to thinking this was the bad evil TOC striking again is quite funny, especially when you read the article to find what actually happened.

 

[jon0844]

BR introduced penalty fares did it not? The byelaws go back years, so I am amazed people can say it wouldn't have happened under BR.

For goodness sake, if BR hadn't done it for some crazy reason, you'd surely want BR to do it now if we ever renationalised wouldn't you?

People getting off costs every passenger money, so the only reason to defend such actions must be that rather too many people think it would be okay to not buy a ticket and try and lie their way out of it. In which case society is f'd!!

You only need to look at forums talking about the BBC series Parking Mad to see the same comments there, about how bad it is to get done for parking illegally, or dangerously. And particularly upset when they see people getting their cars taken away when they're finally caught and realise they not only have to now pay up - but pay a lot more.