Draconian railway laws

[Parham Wood]

This is once again an example of our draconian railway laws.

Passengers are confused when they see others buying from a guard etc.. To them this then appears as acceptable and legal behaviour. As TheHoff experienced one day he is able to buy a ticket the next he cannot and is penalised. All very confusing and sadly painful.

Please do not raise the issue of signs. People do not read signs and seeing others buy tickets on board confuses and renders the sign information as of no applicable value. I am totally against deliberate fare evasion but in reality we tax payers subsidise the railways a lot and we should not be treated to court proceedings for trying to use public transport.

Something really needs to be done about these ticketing laws. It should be say two strikes in law before one is taken to court if really applicable and it should not be a discretionary thing to allow these strikes unless deliberate fare evasion is really evident - eg giving false information.

Even this does not cover losing a ticket on a journey which can happen, we are human after all. No one should be taken to court for losing a ticket.

Yes how you distinguish between this and deliberate fraud is not easy to solve. Unfortunately the innocent are punished so that prosecuting the real fraudsters is made easy.

Mods' note: split from Looks like a court date is in my future. Urgent advice would be appreciated

 

[bb21]

Please do not raise the issue of signs. People do not read signs and seeing others buy tickets on board confuses and renders the sign information as of no applicable value.

Why not?

People may not take them seriously, but as things stand, they do serve a purpose, and had better be taken seriously. It matters not one jot what some average passenger thinks, the law as it stands is heavily against the travelling public and can be easily broken.

I don't want to see people in trouble any more than the next person, but until this changes, this better be drilled into everyone's head.

 

[Clip]

This is once again an example of our draconian railway laws. Passengers are confused when they see others buying from a guard etc.. To them this then appears as acceptable and legal behaviour. As the OP experienced one day he is able to buy a ticket the next he cannot and is penalised. All very confusing and sadly painful.

Please do not raise the issue of signs. People do not read signs and seeing others buy tickets on board confuses and renders the sign information as of no applicable value.
I am totally against deliberate fare evasion but in reality we tax payers subsidise the railways a lot and we should not be treated to court procedings for trying to use public transport. Something really needs to be done about these ticketing laws. It should be say two strikes in law before one is taken to court if really applicable and it should not be a discretionary thing to allow these strikes unless deliberate fare evasion is really evident - eg giving false information. Even this does not cover losing a ticket on a journey which can happen, we are human after all. No one should be taken to court for losing a ticket. Yes how you distinguish between this and deliberate fraud is not easy to solve. Unfortunately the innocent are punished so that prosecuting the real fraudsters is made easy.

Im sorry but I will raise the issue of the signs and I will reiterate what I have said before on this matter, ignorance of the signs is no defence. To try and suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Unfortunatly for TheHoff they took it upon themselves to not even bother queuing to test how long the queue was and by their own admission just glanced at the TVMs and 'jogged' onto the train. Insufficient time was given to purchase a ticket and then by refusing the PF (which are intended for mistakes like these) and their own indignation they have now brought it upon themselves to face a much larger cash penalty - their fault and not the railways.


ETA: This brings no assistance to the OP I know but Im sick of people trying to justify not reading notices as some form of defence. They are there for a reason.

 

[Flamingo]

Given that this is their regular commute to work on (I presume) a daily basis, I would question why TheHoff does not buy a season ticket, and would suspect it's because there are enough days when they do not get asked for a ticket by the guard on a short journey for them to think they would get away with it.

Pharham woods emotional post is ignoring this, and the possibility that TheHoff is one of the regular fare dodgers that he says should be targeted...

 

[dzug2]

You are driving along a road in a bit of a rush and see a 30 sign ahead of you. You either miss it or do not know what it means. Would either of those 'excuses' prevent you being fined for speeding?

 

[NSEFAN]

There needs to be greater consistency. Either we have commercial guards or RPIs, but having a mixture of both is confusing for passengers, especially when they both work on the same line. For example, my local station St Denys has posters about penalty fares, but guards are more than happy to sell tickets. This sends out the wrong message to passengers.

Whenever I use the local trains I always see at least a couple of passengers buying local tickets from the guard, which are easily available from the TVM. I cannot know whether these passengers are just chancing it or being honest, but either way it is routine behaviour. I've never seen an RPI on the local routes around Southampton but I imagine they would catch a lot of people should they run a sting operation.

 

[cuccir]

The laws are a little Draconian, but they are designed to be! It is (and has always been) impossible to catch all attempts are fare evasion, short of having inspectors checking all tickets as people board (which is clearly impractical). The punishments are therefore high to act as deterrents against committing a crime which has a relatively high percentage chance of going undetected.

The downside of this system is that people who don't purchase tickets out of naivety/error are submitted to these same punishments as well. However, and while we can imagine passenger-oriented improvements (such as a 'by-on-board-guarantee' where queues are over a certain length, though clearly this would have its own problems), I think as a whole this approach is preferable in order to catch those persistent fare evaders in a financially efficient way.

 

[DarloRich]

There are issues raised with railway legislation (that we often see on this board) that could do with being tested in court but until someone with enough resource does so they will continue.

 

[GodAtum]

I would say I am reasonable aware of railway rules, but I could not tell you what TOC allows you to buy on board!

 

[kieron]

You are driving along a road in a bit of a rush and see a 30 sign ahead of you. You either miss it or do not know what it means. Would either of those 'excuses' prevent you being fined for speeding?

Maybe. There are quite exacting rules on how speed limit signs need to be arranged in order for people to be fined for speeding. If you missed it because it failed to comply with them then it would do. If you do not know what a 30 sign means but (for instance) have passed a driving test in the past, this probably won't be part of a valid defence.

You may like to take advice before responding to any request for money in such circumstances. And you probably shouldn't take too much from this about railway prosecutions.

 

[Hadders]

I think the confusion comes by not having ticket purchasing facilities at all stations. If all stations had a minimum of a decent TVM then buy before you board could be properly enforced.

The problem comes with passengers seeing others buying on board for legitimate reasons and then think they can do likewise. This then causes confusion and ambiguity which is the cause of the problem.

 

[najaB]

I think the confusion comes by not having ticket purchasing facilities at all stations. If all stations had a minimum of a decent TVM then buy before you board could be properly enforced.

The problem comes with passengers seeing others buying on board for legitimate reasons and then think they can do likewise. This then causes confusion and ambiguity which is the cause of the problem.

It'll cost a lot to get a TVM at every station, and at some it would be complete overkill - think about stations that get double-digit numbers of passengers a day. A simple permit to travel machine is all that's needed. That way there wouldn't be any confusion: you would have to be in possession of a ticket or permit to travel. If not, then you're in violation of the rules.

 

[table38]

There is still a sign at Stalybridge saying you can "buy on board" on Transpennine services.

So your average passenger needs to know that different rules apply at different stations, and that if they get on one type of train they may be "fined", or on another they may not; or that some tickets can be bought on board a Northern train and that some can't; some stations require a permit to travel, others need you to buy a part fare (even though there may not be a TVM on the platform you are travelling from, so you are expected to wander around the whole station trying to find if there is one or not)

So really you need a degree in ticketing before you can even enter a station (which is why I think they ought to teach this in schools, along with travelling "etiquette" but that's a different argument!). Maybe (as with the 30 sign argument) we all need to pass a test before we can use a train

However fundamentally, I think the problem is this:

• You can't be bound by the NCoC if you haven't bought a ticket, as you have no contract. So there needs to be a "catch all" law otherwise no one would buy a ticket (as the worst penalty they could expect if caught would be to have to buy the ticket they should have bought in the first place)
• We are all human, but the law treats everyone the same and does not cater for someone making a genuine human mistake (losing ticket, not carrying discount card, forgetting which stop they got on at etc.) but we know there are some people who will try it on every time.

I think we need a "three strikes" rule. If you can provide ID, you are given the benefit of the doubt at least a couple of times!

 

[Bertie the bus]

I think the confusion comes by not having ticket purchasing facilities at all stations. If all stations had a minimum of a decent TVM then buy before you board could be properly enforced.

The problem comes with passengers seeing others buying on board for legitimate reasons and then think they can do likewise. This then causes confusion and ambiguity which is the cause of the problem.

Do people not find it slightly odd that most of the people caught out are only confused by things that benefit them?

They see people joining at unstaffed stations so think it is alright for them to not purchase a ticket before they travel, however, they also almost always see people queuing at the ticket office where they boarded the train.

Do they not wonder why these people are queuing? Because they enjoy it? Because they have nothing better to do with their lives? No, because you're meant to buy a ticket from your origin station if there are ticket issuing facilities and the vast majority of people are aware of this.

 

[najaB]

However fundamentally, I think the problem is this:

• You can't be bound by the NCoC if you haven't bought a ticket, as you have no contract. So there needs to be a "catch all" law otherwise no one would buy a ticket (as the worst penalty they could expect if caught would be to have to buy the ticket they should have bought in the first place)
• We are all human, but the law treats everyone the same and does not cater for someone making a genuine human mistake (losing ticket, not carrying discount card, forgetting which stop they got on at etc.) but we know there are some people who will try it on every time.

I think we need a "three strikes" rule. If you can provide ID, you are given the benefit of the doubt at least a couple of times!

Agreed that the NCoC don't apply, however the Railway Byelaws and Regulation of Railways Act do. And those are the ones that can find you in court, land you a fine and/or a prison sentence with associated criminal record.

The Penalty Fares scheme is supposed to just that - give the benefit of the doubt - however the fact that not every TOC operates a PF scheme, and the negative connotation of it being a Penalty Fare causes people not to see it as such.

It's only through this forum that I've come to realise that they should really be called "Okay, you don't have a valid ticket so technically we should be sending you a summons to court but, since that'll take a long time and be really stressful and expensive, we'll make you pay a higher than usual fare and if you can prove that you shouldn't have gotten it we'll give you the money back" Fare.

But that would need a bigger form to fit it all on.

 

[Yew]

You are driving along a road in a bit of a rush and see a 30 sign ahead of you. You either miss it or do not know what it means. Would either of those 'excuses' prevent you being fined for speeding?

Depends on the situation, if you miss it because, for example, a tree has grown in front of the sign (as has happened near me) I expect you could have a reasonable chance

There are issues raised with railway legislation (that we often see on this board) that could do with being tested in court but until someone with enough resource does so they will continue.

Unfortunately for most people, the stakes are too high to risk their day in court, as a good railway lawyer, plus the costs of the potential fine, could easily slip into a cost of thousands of pounds, not really worth it relative top a few hundred for a settlement. Self representation doesn't work, as there is a considerable amount of case law amassed since 1881, and that sets out a lot of precedents that are not immediately obvious, but generally in favour of the railways

I think the confusion comes by not having ticket purchasing facilities at all stations. If all stations had a minimum of a decent TVM then buy before you board could be properly enforced.

The problem comes with passengers seeing others buying on board for legitimate reasons and then think they can do likewise. This then causes confusion and ambiguity which is the cause of the problem.

I don't understand this forums obsession with putting ticketing facilities on every station. A lot of places outside of the SE work well as they are, with tickets being bought on the train, and personally I much prefer it as its much more convenient. The only way I would accept ticketing facilities at all stations, would be if TOC's where bound by the waiting time commitments in their passenger charter, as inspected by an independent ombudsman.

 

[island]

I would say I am reasonable aware of railway rules, but I could not tell you what TOC allows you to buy on board!

First Hull Trains and Grand Central both do, for a start. Even if starting from a barriered station.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . .

However fundamentally, I think the problem is this:

• You can't be bound by the NCoC if you haven't bought a ticket, as you have no contract. . . . .

• I disagree.
  
  I accept that the terms of the NRCoC could not easily be invoked if a person was travelling without having bought a ticket. However, it would generally be true to say that a passenger who has not had an opportunity to buy a ticket but who intends to do so where it is possible, at a later point during their journey, had a contract to travel with the Railway Company - the only evidence of that contract at some moment in time might be the actions of the two parties, but that makes it no less of a binding Contract, and the actions (the travel, the accomodation, the journey, etc.) are convincing and persuasive.

 

[najaB]

I disagree.

I accept that the terms of the NRCoC could not easily be invoked if a person was travelling without having bought a ticket. However, it would generally be true to say that a passenger who has not had an opportunity to buy a ticket but who intends to do so where it is possible, at a later point during their journey, had a contract to travel with the Railway Company - the only evidence of that contract at some moment in time might be the actions of the two parties, but that makes it no less of a binding Contract, and the actions (the travel, the accomodation, the journey, etc.) are convincing and persuasive.

If I understand your point correctly, if I join a train at an unstaffed station which does not have a working TVM then as long as I can demonstrate that I had intention to pay (e.g. I have enough money to pay the fare) then the contract can be said to have started when I boarded the train.

If, however, I walk past an open ticket office and/or do not have the means to pay for my ticket, then no contract can be said to have been entered into and the conditions of the Conditions of Carriage don't apply, but the RoRA and Byelaws do.

So there's no need for any additional laws as called for by table38 as the existing laws adequately cover all possibilities.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It is irrelevant whether the NRCoC applies to people who have not purchased a ticket. The NRCoC is a contract and you cannot be prosecuted for breach of contract.

Passengers without tickets are prosecuted under RoRA or Byelaws and railway byelaws apply to anybody on railway property, whether they have a ticket or not and, indeed, whether they intend to travel or not.

 

[table38]

Really it would help then if the NCoC were displayed prominently at every station. I'm still not convinced someone could be bound by T&Cs they weren't made aware of. (Until they buy a ticket of course!)

 

[Bertie the bus]

As I've just pointed out, nobody is prosecuted for breaching Ts&Cs as it is not a criminal offence. They are prosecuted under RoRA or byelaws.

As for not being able to be prosecuted for something you have not been explicitly informed of, I've never been explicitly informed that I should not defecate in the street, but if I tried it I fully expect to be prosecuted.

Also, as the OP stated that people don't read posters regarding purchasing a ticket before boarding do you really think they are going to read the 31 page NRCoC if it was displayed?

 

[table38]

As I've just pointed out, nobody is prosecuted for breaching Ts&Cs as it is not a criminal offence. They are prosecuted under RoRA or byelaws.

Agreed, I made that point back in #13

As for not being able to be prosecuted for something you have not been explicitly informed of, I've never been explicitly informed that I should not defecate in the street, but if I tried it I fully expect to be prosecuted.

But that's slightly different, there is specifically provision that "ignorance of the law is no defence". Anyway Paula Radcliffe got away with it

Also, as the OP stated that people don't read posters regarding purchasing a ticket before boarding do you really think they are going to read the 31 page NRCoC if it was displayed?

No, any more than I read the H&S posters every time I go into work; but at least you wouldn't be able to claim you weren't made aware

 

[Tetchytyke]

Really it would help then if the NCoC were displayed prominently at every station. I'm still not convinced someone could be bound by T&Cs they weren't made aware of. (Until they buy a ticket of course!)

They're not bound by the NRCoC, they're bound by local byelaws and the Regulation of Railways Act.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence when you break it.

The problem with the railways is not the law, it is the haphazard way that the law is enforced on the railways.

On my local train to work if I sit in first class with my standard class ticket on a weekday I'll be prosecuted or given a Penalty Fare of £67.60 but if I sit in first class on a weekend I'll be allowed to buy a upgrade for £15, no questions asked.

At Bradford Interchange I'll be liable for prosecution if the train I board is purple, but I'll be able to buy anything I want if the train is black.

If I get on an EMT train at Belper I'll be liable for a penalty fare, but if I get on the exact same train at Matlock I won't.

And there's still no consensus on whether a ticket machine is an "opportunity to buy". I have it in writing from London Midland that I won't be charged a Penalty Fare on their services if I don't use the TVM, as it doesn't accept cash, but what about SouthEastern or FCC?

I know why the TOCs abandoned the idea- cost- but there really was something to be said for the Permit to Travel scheme.

 

[table38]

They're not bound by the NRCoC, they're bound by local byelaws and the Regulation of Railways Act.

Correct, which is why I said that back in #13

What we were arguing about is whether the NCoC could be sufficient in it's own right. I don't see how someone could be expected to be aware of the conditions until they bought a ticket... which is why there has to be additional legislation!

 

[Bertie the bus]

On my local train to work if I sit in first class with my standard class ticket on a weekday I'll be prosecuted or given a Penalty Fare of £67.60 but if I sit in first class on a weekend I'll be allowed to buy a upgrade for £15, no questions asked.

At Bradford Interchange I'll be liable for prosecution if the train I board is purple, but I'll be able to buy anything I want if the train is black.

If I get on an EMT train at Belper I'll be liable for a penalty fare, but if I get on the exact same train at Matlock I won't.

These kind of examples are often quoted on forums like this but completely irrelevant to the vast majority of passengers.

People who live in Burnley, for example, catch the train from Burnley. They have never heard of Grand Central, never mind what their conditions or carriage are, and are extremely unlikely to start a journey on the SWT or EMT network. Therefore just because different TOCs have different policies is of no relevance to their journey.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What we were arguing about is whether the NCoC could be sufficient in it's own right. I don't see how someone could be expected to be aware of the conditions until they bought a ticket... which is why there has to be additional legislation!

It could be on a small sign on every station as a condition of entry to the premises. It wouldn't take much, and would be more useful than about 90% of the rubbish that gets put up in poster boards.

There's no reason why NRCoC couldn't be enough, my view is that the TOCs are private companies and fare collection should mainly be a civil matter. However this Government, and their Tory Lite predecessors, love protecting their fat cat mates in big business, so the devil will be skiing to work long before the Byelaws are dragged into the 21st century (which is impressive given they were only revised a few years ago).

 

[table38]

Ironically the original Regulation of Railways Act was more about protecting the rights of passengers. I think the bit about "requiring passengers to show tickets and to pay a penalty if travelling without a ticket" was slipped in later!

 

[VisualAcid]

Whilst the use of word draconian is a bit of an exaggeration the lack of consistency can trip up a lot of passengers, especially when one company operates two very different franchises, like FCC and FGW. Some signs aren't particularly useful either, at my local station there is a penalty fare warning despite there being only facilities in the early morning, this has put many people I know off travelling from there due to the confusion.

If they abandoned the plethora of small print and simply had something like: FCC BUY BEFORE YOU BOARD, VIRGIN CAN BUY ON BOARD or something it could be cleared up.

 

[LateThanNever]

They're not bound by the NRCoC, they're bound by local byelaws and the Regulation of Railways Act.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence when you break it.

True, but my MP was unable to indicate how many Acts had been passed on his watch - so I think it is reasonable to conclude that if he doesn't know how do our Legislators expect the rest of us to know? But we can certainly count not paying a fare when you travel as something wrong..

The problem with the railways is not the law, it is the haphazard way that the law is enforced on the railways.

It is certainly haphazard but I do think if strict liability were removed it would encourage the enforcement to be less haphazard. Passengers would also be more certain of where they stood .
You'd avoid the ridiculous situation I had last year where I was issued a ticket at the barrier for a date about three weeks ahead when I was travelling that day (and if the barrier hadn't been manned as it usually wasn't I'd have paid on the train). It was dated April 1st which I was able to have a lot of fun with when I wrote to complain! But I had to explain at every ticket check that I'd been issued with an incorrectly dated ticket. And legally of course it was invalid and I was liable!

On my local train to work if I sit in first class with my standard class ticket on a weekday I'll be prosecuted or given a Penalty Fare of £67.60 but if I sit in first class on a weekend I'll be allowed to buy a upgrade for £15, no questions asked.

At Bradford Interchange I'll be liable for prosecution if the train I board is purple, but I'll be able to buy anything I want if the train is black.

If I get on an EMT train at Belper I'll be liable for a penalty fare, but if I get on the exact same train at Matlock I won't.

This is lovely! It just cannot be reasonable to expect the everyday traveller to know any of this!

And there's still no consensus on whether a ticket machine is an "opportunity to buy". I have it in writing from London Midland that I won't be charged a Penalty Fare on their services if I don't use the TVM, as it doesn't accept cash, but what about SouthEastern or FCC?

I know why the TOCs abandoned the idea- cost- but there really was something to be said for the Permit to Travel scheme.

I think if a ticket machine doesn't give you an opportunity to pay it cannot by definition be an opportunity to buy!