Do this seem fair to you?

[dcsprior]

By the way, I would lose my job if I got a criminal record, so the stakes for me are high. I would want to know now if they are prosecuting me only under the Byelaw 18 offence and not the s.5 Railways Act offence. I can't for the life of me see that they could have any real prospect of arguing intent to evade on my part. However having read round a bit the Byelaw 18 is strict liability offence it seems and given that I could not produce a valid ticket it is an 'open goal' for them.

Based on my limited understanding (someone with more understanding will hopefully be along shortly to confirm) that although a prosecution under this bylaw is a criminal matter, it doesn't result in a criminal record in the normal sense.

 

[najaB]

Based on my limited understanding ... although a prosecution under this bylaw is a criminal matter, it doesn't result in a criminal record in the normal sense.

That is correct.

 

[Bijgc]

Not strictly related, and I appreciate that the RPI at LBG was a bit MG11 happy, but the discrepancies on this route are farcical. Govia Thameslink Railways own both Thameslink and Southern, who share routes. On my journeys using Southern (commute ECR to LBG), onboard staff regularly announce that if anyone needs to buy tickets for the journey, catch them as they walk through the train or find them on the platform at the destination. A passenger in a similar case and taking an identical journey on Thameslink (who use green and white-branded stock that looks pretty similar to Southern-branded stock for LBG to ECR services) would find themselves facing prosecution. I really don't think this is acceptable.

 

[Paddy17]

Just a quick question - did you buy a ticket for your return journey home, and if so do you still posses it? The reason I ask is that you will be entitled to a refund of this upon presentation of your season ticket to a booking office, usual caveats apply.

Once you have done that you could enquire of the company why they are proceeding in such a vastly different way to regulate your outward journey.

Season ticket holders are entitled to this additional safeguard but if the RPI felt that this warranted further investigation he should have obtained details, issued a penalty fare [PF], but then, crucially, informed the OP that if everything was in order then the PF would be quashed on appeal and that any monies paid would be refunded.

I did not buy a return ticket home as I had a social engagement that evening, which finished quite late and so I got a taxi back home.

As regards the penalty fare, this was not even offered to me by the RPI when he stepped in. He went straight to the MG11. I repeatedly asked him to deal with it by way of payment of a return fare or even a penalty fare, but he refused.

People are rightly up in arms and protest when people dodge fares and make the rest of us pay for them.

But where is the corresponding support and protest for people like myself who obey the rules, pay for their season tickets and are honest in their dealings and do not try to mislead anyone? They still get the book thrown at them for an innocent mistake and money is demanded with the threat of a criminal record.

The whole thing is wrong. It is a money raising racket and a total abuse of power.

 

[dcsprior]

The whole thing is wrong. It is a money raising racket and a total abuse of power.

It is possible that rather than this being deliberate, it has been mishandled by someone at the TOC, and perhaps speaking to someone more senior may result in them trying to avoid any bad press resulting from failing to follow their own published procedures on forgotten season tickets.

 

[island]

He said that he would be issuing me with a piece of paper which I could use to exit the ticket barrier today without paying anything. Then all I would have to do would be to present that piece of paper along with my yearly season ticket at any ticket office within 14 days and the whole thing would be forgotten about.

Did you present the piece of paper along with your annual season ticket at any ticket office within 14 days?

 

[Paddy17]

Did you present the piece of paper along with your annual season ticket at any ticket office within 14 days?

No I have not, but I am presently still within the 14 days, so could do this. It only happened on the 04th so my 14 days does not expire until the 18th of November.

I telephoned Govia Thameslink Customer service on the day that it all happened (04th November) and they told me that I could not sort it out in the way the RPI had told me i.e. by presenting the MG11 along with my season ticket. They told me that the only way to deal with the MG11 was to wait until I received correspondence from their prosecutions department and respond to that with my written response. It also says that on the MG11 itself i.e. to wait to hear from the prosecutions dept.

Notwithstanding the above, do you think it is worthwhile me going to the London Bridge ticket office with the MG11 and my season ticket and seeing what happens? I suspect that they will simply tell me to go away as there is nothing they can do about it there, but I suppose I have nothing to lose.

 

[bb21]

You have nothing to lose by going to London Bridge and seeing what they say.

If I were you, I would not pay a single penny. Condition 35 of the NRCoC is not something they can choose to obey or ignore. It is part of the contract entered into by the train company in selling you a season ticket. Issuing a summons instead of following the NRCoC is a disgraceful act imo.

 

[maniacmartin]

Condition 35 of the NRCoC is not something they can choose to obey or ignore. It is part of the contract entered into by the train company in selling you a season ticket. Issuing a summons instead of following the NRCoC is a disgraceful act imo.

Read it again, they is no firm obligation on the TOC in section 35

 

[gray1404]

When you spoke to Customer Services did you formalise a complaint with them about the way this has been handelled and did they give you a case reference number. There does need to be a full investigation into this and questions asked about why it has been dealt with the way it has. I think you also need to involve Passenger Focus because it is simply wrong that I season ticket holder who has left their season ticket at home is being asked to come up with such a large amount of money or face going to court.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I wonder if they way the franchise operates has anything to do with this? GTR do not keep any revenue from tickets or penalty fares - it all goes straight to the DfT. GTR, however, do keep money raised from these out of court settlements. Therefore, it is in GTR's short-term financial interests not to penalty fare or allow passengers to buy tickets, but to chance their luck MG11ing passengers, hoping they will pay up in out of court settlements.

I say short-term, because it won't be long before the DfT will start slapping wrists with the way the organisation is being run.

 

[bb21]

Read it again, they is no firm obligation on the TOC in section 35

On the refund front, not in the NRCoC, but in terms of the MG11,

35. Season Ticket or photocard unavailable for inspection

If you do not show a Season Ticket, or any photocard required with a Season Ticket, when
asked by staff or agents of a Train Company, you will be treated as having joined a train
without a ticket and Condition 2 or 4 will apply.

...

Sounds pretty definitive to me. Condition 2/4 will apply.

On the refund front, the NRE Season ticket terms page should cover it:

...

Season Tickets left at home

If you do not have your Season Ticket with you when you travel you must buy a ticket for your journey. You will be able to get a refund on the fare paid on the first two occasions this happens in any 12 month period. On the second such occasion an administration charge will be made (see below). No more than two of these types of refund will be made in any 12 month period. You will need to hand in the tickets you have bought. You should make refund claims of this type within 28 days of travel.

...

There is no operator exclusion clause. There is no need to rely on the operator's own policies.

Edit:

I note with interest that furlong quoted the same thing earlier.

While it can be argued that a Byelaw breach may have taken place, I suspect that it would take a real nasty magistrate to find the defendant guilty.

There is no case to answer under the RoRA imo as no fare has been avoided.

 

[najaB]

On the refund front, the NRE Season ticket terms should cover it.

As I pointed out above, the wording "you will be able to get" isn't the same thing as "you will get" - I read it as putting an upper limit on the number of times you can get such a refund, rather than stating you are entitled to the refund in the first place. "You will be able to get up to two pieces of cake" doesn't guarantee that there will be cake.

While it can be argued that a Byelaw breach may have taken place, I suspect that it would take a real nasty magistrate to find the defendant guilty.

There is no case to answer under the RoRA imo as no fare has been avoided.

I agree with you on the RoRA. However as far as a Byelaw 18 case is concerned, the OP did board at a staffed station without a ticket, so the court would have to find him guilty as none of the exceptions applied. Remember, the strict liability nature of the Byelaws bites both ways.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I suspect that it would take a real nasty magistrate to find the defendant guilty.

Unfortunately magistrates rely heavily on the advice of their legal advisors, the clerks who sit with them in court to provide advice on points of law.

The quality of advice can be variable, as can the propensity of the magistrates to take that advice. If you have a court that deals with a number of railway matters you will do better than one that doesn't.

I know many on the bench who will always try to arrive at the right decision within the constraints which they are placed. Sometimes they are presented with a strict liability offence have little option other than to convict.

 

[furlong]

If there is no more to this matter than presented on this thread, I'd suggest that it needs to be pursued formally with the DfT (through your M.P. if you prefer).

In short, the basic question I am asking (and I expect a magistrate would too) is: If I, as an honest season ticket holder, were to discover I was not in physical possession of my season ticket at some point during my journey, what can I do so as not to be guilty of either a byelaw or a RORA offence? If paying the company £250 "costs" is the correct answer, then I think we have a problem with the law that needs to be addressed urgently.

 

[bb21]

As I pointed out above, the wording "you will be able to get" isn't the same thing as "you will get" - I read it as putting an upper limit on the number of times you can get such a refund, rather than stating you are entitled to the refund in the first place. "You will be able to get up to two pieces of cake" doesn't guarantee that there will be cake.

"Up to two" means zero, one or two. No such uncertainty exists in the paragraph I quoted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know many on the bench who will always try to arrive at the right decision within the constraints which they are placed. Sometimes they are presented with a strict liability offence have little option other than to convict.

Even if convicted, it may well be a conviction with minimal fine and costs awarded.

 

[najaB]

"Up to two" means zero, one or two. No such uncertainty exists in the paragraph I quoted.

Fair enough. But the point is "you will be able to get x on the first two occasions" isn't the same thing as "you will get x on the first two occasions". It is putting a limit on the number of times x can happen, not that x will definitely happen. It is a very small semantic difference, but the two statments are not the same.

Note, however, that I believe the OP should get a fee-free refund but they wouldn't be able to pursue the TOC for it. The more important matter though is that they are not liable for any more than the single fare from Penge West to London Bridge.

 

[bb21]

Fair enough. But the point is "you will be able to get x on the first two occasions" isn't the same thing as "you will get x on the first two occasions". It is putting a limit on the number of times x can happen, not that x will definitely happen. It is a very small semantic difference, but the two statments are not the same.

Note, however, that I believe the OP should get a fee-free refund but they wouldn't be able to pursue the TOC for it. The more important matter though is that they are not liable for any more than the single fare from Penge West to London Bridge.

Suffice to say that I disagree, but we will leave it at that.

 

[najaB]

Suffice to say that I disagree, but we will leave it at that.

I hope it's only the first paragraph you disagree with!

 

[furlong]

Developing this line of argument further:

Q) Do the circumstances described (in the general case) constitute a breach of the byelaw?

a) If they do, then I'd suggest that the DfT needs to act urgently to prevent any further occurrences and then update the byelaw to formalise this position.

b) If they do not, then the DfT should consider whether this constitutes a breach of the franchise agreement and take appropriate enforcement action, including finding out whether there have been other similar cases and having them reopened and put right if need be. If it concludes that it is not a breach, then the terms of this and future franchises should now be updated so that it would be a breach the next time an honest passenger is asked to pay £250 to avoid a criminal conviction for accidentally leaving their season ticket at home.

 

[najaB]

Developing this line of argument further:

Q) Do the circumstances described (in the general case) constitute a breach of the byelaw?

Distilling it down to the bare bones, the OP held (but was not in possession of) a season ticket when they boarded the train at Penge West, so yes they were in violation of Byelaw 18.1

 

[gray1404]

"Up to two" means zero, one or two. No such uncertainty exists in the paragraph I quoted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Even if convicted, it may well be a conviction with minimal fine and costs awarded.

I wonder if we read into things here on this forum more then a TOC would?? lol

Could the OP please advise

1. if they have raised a formal complaint with the TOC about this

2. what actions they are going to take at this point i.e. who else have you contacted...?

 

[hounddog]

Fair enough. But the point is "you will be able to get x on the first two occasions" isn't the same thing as "you will get x on the first two occasions".

Utter twaddle.

It says I will be able to get a refund on two occasions. Obviously if I don't ask I won't get but if I do they are obliged to pay it. Your reading is simply perverse.

 

[najaB]

Obviously if I don't ask I won't get but if I do they are obliged to pay it.

Interestingly that isn't what the NRCoC says:

35. Season Ticket or photocard unavailable for inspection If you do not show a Season Ticket, or any photocard required with a Season Ticket, when asked by staff or agents of a Train Company, you will be treated as having joined a train without a ticket and Condition 2 or 4 will apply.
If, subsequently, you present at the office where the Season Ticket was issued.
(a) the Season Ticket;
(b) the photocard, if required; and
(c) the additional tickets you have purchased or any Penalty Fares notices, the relevant Train Company may, at its discretion, refund any fares paid in accordance with Condition 2 or 4 less a reasonable administration charge (not exceeding £10). No more than two such claims will be considered in any 12 month period regardless of the number of Season Tickets purchased in that time.

(my bold).

 

[infobleep]

Interestingly that isn't what the NRCoC saysmy bold).

There's nothing in NRCoC that says train companies are not allowed to offer more generous terms and conditions.

 

[najaB]

There's nothing in NRCoC that says train companies are not allowed to offer more generous terms and conditions.

I know that. Anyway, this is a side discussion that isn't adding anything that will be useful to the OP. I have my interpretation, others have theirs let's just agree to disagree.

 

[furlong]

Distilling it down to the bare bones, the OP held (but was not in possession of) a season ticket when they boarded the train at Penge West, so yes they were in violation of Byelaw 18.1

That is your opinion, but I have my doubts, as I already indicated and it would be interesting to know the DfT's position, or to find out whether the courts would entertain the development of 'abuse of process' or other arguments in these circumstances.

It would also be interesting to look at the history of this byelaw too and find at what point a breach first attracted a separate financial penalty (rather than just the requirement to pay the fare immediately or leave the railway).

 

[najaB]

That is your opinion, but I have my doubts, as I already indicated and it would be interesting to know the DfT's position, or to find out whether the courts would entertain the development of 'abuse of process' or other arguments in these circumstances.

I'm sorry, I'm probably being thick, but I can't see how the OP would not be in breach of Byelaw 18.1? How does the fact that the ticket they didn't have was a season make it any different to not having a non-season.

 

[jumble]

I'm sorry, I'm probably being thick, but I can't see how the OP would not be in breach of Byelaw 18.1? How does the fact that the ticket they didn't have was a season make it any different to not having a non-season.

I would be inclined to send in a copy of this from Thameslink FAQ and ask specifically for a senior manager to explain precisely why what is stated below in Bold does not apply to you .
It is using the words "will" which is pretty explicit and no weasel words of "may"


http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/contact-us/frequently-asked-questions/penalty-fares-faqs/#d


What happens if I forget my season ticket or photocard?
If you lose or forget your season ticket/photocard you must buy a replacement ticket for your journey. Keep the tickets because you can claim a full refund at the ticket office where you purchased your season ticket. Only two refund applications will be considered in a 12 month period and you may be charged an administration fee

If you find that you don’t have your season ticket once you're on the train you’ll be asked to give your details and to pay the standard single fare for your journey (which will be refunded on production of your valid season ticket) If you have no money then you will be given a 'nil paid' penalty fare.

You must then send a copy of your valid season ticket to the address shown on the penalty fare. If you don't do this within 21 days you will be asked to pay the full amount (which will be twice the standard day single or £20, whichever is the greater) for the journey undertaken

 

[najaB]

I would be inclined to send in a copy of this from Thameslink FAQ and ask specifically for a senior manager to explain precisely why what is stated below in Bold does not apply to you.

I agree. However, that doesn't mean that a Byelaw 18.1 offence has not occurred - as DaveNewcastle pointed out above this doesn't constitute permission for the OP to travel without a ticket.