Disputes of dubious merit

[riceuten]

Please move this post elsewhere or delete if not deemed appropriate

A few years ago I was travelling to work in London, which involved taking a train from Stevenage (where I live) to Finsbury Park, and changing onto the tube there to head northwards. I had a ticket that covered me for this journey, but not to central London. One morning, I caught my usual train, which was delayed, and the driver made an additional stop at Welwyn North and the - after we departed - announced then that the train was then non-stopping to London Kings Cross.

"That's alright" I though (although irritating), "I will just jump on the next northbound that stops at FPK - this has happened before". When we disembarked at KGX, our way was barred by a gaggle (is that the appropriate collective term?) of Revenue Control Officers, who wanted to know why myself (and probably 4 or 5 others) did not have an appropriate ticket.

"That's alright", I thought, "I will explain to the RCO that we non-stopped FPK and he will let us off".

"No", came the response, "you overtravelled your ticket, and that's all there is to it". I asked to speak to the supervisor, and he stated - unbelievably - that I should "pay the fine, appeal it, and we will investigate it and refund you if what you say is true". To the contrary, I suggested they speak to one of the TOC staff (or the driver, who was still in his cab) to verify my statement and the other passengers in a similar boat.

"No, you must pay the fine" said the team leader.

Now, I am ashamed to say at this point I stalked off down the platform towards platforms 9-11 and was relieved that, despite shouting at me and threatening to call BTP, they did not follow me. I got a train a couple of minutes later back to FPK.

In such a situation, what would YOU have done? I can kind of understand the RCOs have "heard it all before", but in a situation like this, obviously could not be bothered to verify an entirely credible story.

 

[3rd rail land]

I imagine revenue staff must have heard just about every story imaginable from passengers who have been unable to produce a valid ticket. IN your situation I would have done as you did and refused any penalty fare as I wouldn't want the hassle of having to appeal.

I would have been tempted to sue aa site like realtimetrains to prove that the train went non stop from WGC. If they refused to accept that I would have suggested they check with their TOC. If they still wouldn't budge in their position of trying to issue a penalty fare I would have done as you did and simply walked away. I believe revenue staff have at least do some basic checks to see if the story they are given is correct or not.

 

[riceuten]

I imagine revenue staff must have heard just about every story imaginable from passengers who have been unable to produce a valid ticket. IN your situation I would have done as you did and refused any penalty fare as I wouldn't want the hassle of having to appeal.

I would have been tempted to sue aa site like realtimetrains to prove that the train went non stop from WGC. If they refused to accept that I would have suggested they check with their TOC. If they still wouldn't budge in their position of trying to issue a penalty fare I would have done as you did and simply walked away. I believe revenue staff have at least do some basic checks to see if the story they are given is correct or not.

I did offer to show them the notice on the TOC's website that said this train would run fast. They were just dead set on issuing a fine. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to take my chances with BTP who under no circumstances would have said "Actually, the passenger has a point here"

 

[CyrusWuff]

Had it not been for the additional call at Welwyn North, you'd be in a stronger position to argue the point.

If it had run non-stop from Stevenage to the Cross without prior warning, then I'd expect the ticket to be endorsed to go back to Finsbury Park.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Are passengers allowed to refuse to accept a penalty fare, and invite the RPI to report for prosecution instead?

 

[island]

Are passengers allowed to refuse to accept a penalty fare, and invite the RPI to report for prosecution instead?

No. And it’s an offence to fail to provide your name, address, and (in England) date of birth when requested for the purpose of issuing a penalty fare.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are passengers allowed to refuse to accept a penalty fare, and invite the RPI to report for prosecution instead?

The passenger does not get a choice. They have to give their name, address and DOB and if they refuse to engage with the Penalty Fare they will be prosecuted in most cases anyway.

 

[Jan Mayen]

No. And it’s an offence to fail to provide your name, address, and (in England) date of birth when requested for the purpose of issuing a penalty fare.

Do we need to give a date of birth? I thought name and address only.

 

[3rd rail land]

The passenger does not get a choice. They have to give their name, address and DOB and if they refuse to engage with the Penalty Fare they will be prosecuted in most cases anyway.

What if the passenger was not a fault so refused the penalty fare and then was prosecuted? Presumably the TOC would lose in court and have had the cost of preparing for and attending a court case that they lost. Actually would the TOC win because the passenger refused the penalty fare and that's an offence in itself?

 

[skyhigh]

Do we need to give a date of birth? I thought name and address only.

Under the new Penalty Fare regulations a date of birth must be provided.

 

[AlterEgo]

What if the passenger was not a fault so refused the penalty fare and then was prosecuted? Presumably the TOC would lose in court and have had the cost of preparing for and attending a court case that they lost. Actually would the TOC win because the passenger refused the penalty fare and that's an offence in itself?

Fault is not a concern with strict liability offences, although there are some specific defences.

It is not an offence to "refuse" a penalty fare but it is a specific offence not to provide your name, address and DOB.

 

[ainsworth74]

What if the passenger was not a fault so refused the penalty fare and then was prosecuted? Presumably the TOC would lose in court and have had the cost of preparing for and attending a court case that they lost. Actually would the TOC win because the passenger refused the penalty fare and that's an offence in itself?

You are under a legal requirement to give a name and address when asked to do so and failing to do so would give rise to a prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889:

5(1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(Emphasis added)

Regulation of Railways Act 1889

An Act to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts; and for other purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It would also be a failure under the Penalty Fare Regulations 2018 to fail to provide your name, address and date of birth when asked to do so:

13.—(1) Where a collector proposes to charge a person a penalty fare under regulation 5(1), that person must, subject to regulation 10(4), provide their name and address, and, in respect of England, their date of birth, when required to do so by the collector.

(2) Any person who fails to provide their name and address, or, in respect of England, their date of birth, in accordance with paragraph (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(10(4) referred to above concerns when a collector doesn't have the power to exercise the powers granted under these regulations which basically boils down to they have to have their ID and their ID must meet the required standards)

The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018

These Regulations make provision for the charging of penalty fares for the failure to produce, when required to do so, a ticket or other authority authorising a person to travel by train or to be present in a compulsory ticket area at a station.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[3rd rail land]

Fault is not a concern with strict liability offences, although there are some specific defences.

It is not an offence to "refuse" a penalty fare but it is a specific offence not to provide your name, address and DOB.

ok, so if someone provided their details as requested but then refused to accept the penalty what happens? For example one gives their details but then immediately walks off before the revenue person can finish issuing the penalty fare?

What would you be charged with in court if you hadn't travelled on an invalid ticket in such circumstances?

 

[Jan Mayen]

I took longer to find it, but I found section 13:
13.—(1) Where a collector proposes to charge a person a penalty fare under regulation 5(1), that person must, subject to regulation 10(4), provide their name and address [F1, and, in respect of England, their date of birth,] when required to do so by the collector.
Anyone know why this doesn't apply in Wales?

 

[AlterEgo]

ok, so if someone provided their details as requested but then refused to accept the penalty what happens? For example one gives their details but then immediately walks off before the revenue person can finish issuing the penalty fare?

What would you be charged with in court if you hadn't travelled on an invalid ticket in such circumstances?

If for whatever reason you just walk away they can simply write you up for prosecution, yes. This would be an idiot's gambit though, as PFs come with numerous protections which limit the consequences to a recipient in a way that the Bylaws do not.

 

[Ediswan]

Had it not been for the additional call at Welwyn North, you'd be in a stronger position to argue the point.

If it had run non-stop from Stevenage to the Cross without prior warning, then I'd expect the ticket to be endorsed to go back to Finsbury Park.

The OP stated:

the driver made an additional stop at Welwyn North and the - after we departed - announced then that the train was then non-stopping to London Kings Cross

 

[3rd rail land]

If for whatever reason you just walk away they can simply write you up for prosecution, yes. This would be an idiot's gambit though, as PFs come with numerous protections which limit the consequences to a recipient in a way that the Bylaws do not.

I guess it would simply be easier to appeal the PF if you know you've done nothing wrong than go to court and win your case.

 

[AlterEgo]

I guess it would simply be easier to appeal the PF if you know you've done nothing wrong than go to court and win your case.

A lot this depends on what you think "you know you've done nothing wrong" means in practice.

 

[riceuten]

Had it not been for the additional call at Welwyn North, you'd be in a stronger position to argue the point.

If it had run non-stop from Stevenage to the Cross without prior warning, then I'd expect the ticket to be endorsed to go back to Finsbury Park.

The driver only announced we'd be non-stopping AFTER we left Welwyn North.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The driver only announced we'd be non-stopping AFTER we left Welwyn North.

My mistake. Managed not to spot the after in the original post.

In which case, I'd have expected the RPIs to be aware of the issue and let you (and the others affected) go through...or if they really wanted to make sure you weren't trying it on, make sure you caught the next train back to FPK.

 

[riceuten]

I guess it would simply be easier to appeal the PF if you know you've done nothing wrong than go to court and win your case.

Why should I have had to pay a penalty fare for a "crime" I didn't actually commit and wasn't actually my fault ? Nor could the RCOs be bothered to check out my - and other passengers' story.

I have zero faith in the "appeal" or legal procedure that would follow, to be honest. And suggesting that I pay the fine and appeal smacks of someone who was determined to issue a penalty fare, come what may

EDIT: To be honest, I think the vast majority of penalty fares are justified, and I have never made a habit of jumping fares even when I could easily have. This issue really hacked me off. Not this line, but I think it was Southern or South Eastern who employed a private firm to do revenue enforcement AND paid the officers a percentage of fines levied, which led to some very dubious decisions.

 

[jon0844]

It sounds very odd for the train to make an additional call at Welwyn North, then the driver didn't say anything until the train started moving and you didn't have the ability to get off for another train.

I'd have expected the train to at least stop additionally at Welwyn Garden City, where platform staff would give the necessary paperwork and announce it running fast, as well as the driver informing people who could get off and change to a Moorgate service (although it might be easier to double back from KGX to FPK, and usually it's more for 2C/2L/2R trains that were due to call at WGC, Hatfield etc. WLW is a very odd place to stop if not scheduled.)

I can only assume the driver was given a call on the GSM-R to ask him/her to run fast, but did that include stopping at WLW and opening the doors there? It all sounds a bit odd, but in any case - whatever actually happened (and I wonder if the paperwork was in fact issued at Stevenage and for whatever reason the OP missed an announcement) - if the train ran fast, staff at King's Cross could easily have looked that up and shown discretion. If the penalty fare was issued and accepted, I cannot see how an appeal would fail.

 

[riceuten]

It sounds very odd for the train to make an additional call at Welwyn North, then the driver didn't say anything until the train started moving and you didn't have the ability to get off for another train.

It was, and I can assure you it was true. Previously I had this where the driver non-stopped from Biggleswade to the Cross, and we were inspected on the way back tyo Stevenage, the the RCOs said "Oh yeah, you're the people who got stranded by the non-stopper"

I'd have expected the train to at least stop additionally at Welwyn Garden City, where platform staff would give the necessary paperwork and announce it running fast, as well as the driver informing people who could get off and change to a Moorgate service (although it might be easier to double back from KGX to FPK, and usually it's more for 2C/2L/2R trains that were due to call at WGC, Hatfield etc. WLW is a very odd place to stop if not scheduled.)

There were a number of trains in a previous timetable that had odd stopping patterns, including stopping at Hitchin, not Stevenage, Knebworth, then Welwyn North and then fast to London.

I can only assume the driver was given a call on the GSM-R to ask him/her to run fast, but did that include stopping at WLW and opening the doors there? It all sounds a bit odd, but in any case - whatever actually happened (and I wonder if the paperwork was in fact issued at Stevenage and for whatever reason the OP missed an announcement) - if the train ran fast, staff at King's Cross could easily have looked that up and shown discretion. If the penalty fare was issued and accepted, I cannot see how an appeal would fail.

I can definitely see numerous reasons how an appeal would fail.

 

[jon0844]

It would be ridiculous for an appeal to fail on a train that ran fast if the driver didn't say anything until it was too late to alight and get another service.

 

[riceuten]

It would be ridiculous for an appeal to fail on a train that ran fast if the driver didn't say anything until it was too late to alight and get another service.

It would, wouldn't it? But I know someone whose train was cancelled, was told by member of staff on the platform to catch the next train, and was told their advance ticket wasn't valid and that they should have got the (then closed) ticket office to endorse their ticket. And lost on appeal

 

[jon0844]

It would, wouldn't it? But I know someone whose train was cancelled, was told by member of staff on the platform to catch the next train, and was told their advance ticket wasn't valid and that they should have got the (then closed) ticket office to endorse their ticket. And lost on appeal

Again, that's ridiculous. I cannot see any reason to need to get a ticket endorsed if a train was cancelled (which can easily be checked and verified) and how an appeal could fail.

 

[Starmill]

No. And it’s an offence to fail to provide your name, address, and (in England) date of birth when requested for the purpose of issuing a penalty fare.

It would be an offence not to supply your name and address if you were told "I, an authorised person having reasonable suspicion that you have broken the Railway Byelaws in relation to the requirement to show a valid ticket for your journey, am asking for your name and address under Byelaw 23 (1)".

If someone simply said "please can you pay the penalty fare of [gbp value]" and the reply were "no", and that were the end of that, then obviously that's not an offence any more than if I ask you what you had for breakfast and you decline to tell me.

Furthermore the "reasonable suspicion" test plainly isn't met when the only thing on which the validity or not of the ticket turns is a train instructed not to stop at a particular station after the journey were already underway. This fact is public knowledge, and freely verified at the time, so no suspicion based on it could be true suspicion. If the train didn't stop even though the not to stop order hadn't actually been issued, or if passengers were overcarrried because of say a door fault, then reasonable suspicion may be in play.

 

[island]

It would be an offence not to supply your name and address if you were told "I, an authorised person having reasonable suspicion that you have broken the Railway Byelaws in relation to the requirement to show a valid ticket for your journey, am asking for your name and address under Byelaw 23 (1)".

That is true, but is not relevant to the point I made. (Note also that there is no requirement to be anywhere near as specific as this.)

If someone simply said "please can you pay the penalty fare of [gbp value]" and the reply were "no", and that were the end of that, then obviously that's not an offence any more than if I ask you what you had for breakfast and you decline to tell me.

That is true, but vacuous.

Furthermore the "reasonable suspicion" test plainly isn't met when the only thing on which the validity or not of the ticket turns is a train instructed not to stop at a particular station after the journey were already underway. This fact is public knowledge and freely verified at the time, so no suspicion based on it could be true suspicion.

I am referring to the requirement in regulation 13 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulation 2018, not the Railway Byelaws. Regulation 13 does not contain the words “reasonable suspicion”.

 

[Starmill]

Anyone know why this doesn't apply in Wales?

Same reason the Penalty Fare floor value is still £20 in Wales, the Secretary of State in London can't use their current authority to amend the Regulation in a way that has an effect on Wales. The Welsh Ministers need to exercise their powers to amend the regulation in respect of Wales if they'd like changes, otherwise it stays as is.

 

[Sonic1234]

It would be an offence not to supply your name and address if you were told "I, an authorised person having reasonable suspicion that you have broken the Railway Byelaws in relation to the requirement to show a valid ticket for your journey, am asking for your name and address under Byelaw 23 (1)".

Although if someone refuses, runs away and hasn't used an e-ticket enforcing this becomes an issue.

Hence the problem with people who push through gatelines.