Etickets

[Eticketer]

There are some very interesting, but entirely irrelevant discussions here. The whole point is that Eticketer had printed the Print~@Home ticket and claims that its date did not reflect the purchased date. Well this is very bizarre as the printed ticket will be for the purchase, going into the account for bookings will only lead to the same pdf to print. The date on the ticket is that you booked.

Thereis then the issue of e-ticket, or not. Eticketer has tried to claim that it is an eticket and it says so in its conditions. Well yes and no, the conditions are:

SPECIFIC e-TICKET CONDITIONS
This is your travel document which must be retained and available for inspection during your journey. This ticket must be clearly printed on plain, clean, white paper

This is what is stated on the printed ticket!

I think this is actually rather clear - it has to be printed, Eticketer had done so, but obviously had booked the wrong date - simples. He is at fault end of.

Thanks but it's not clear. In capitals you refer to Eticket conditions and then in small print it says what the conditions are for printing. Fine of course if you print it out I can accept it needs to be clear so that it can be scanned.

But why refer to it as an Eticket ( e usually understood to be electronic) at all if it's not acceptable in electronic form. And you are wrong I didn't book the wrong date, I booked several dates in advance including the correct date of travelling. I printed out the hard copy for the wrongly dated journey, but given that the ticket is referred to as an Eticket I thought that provided I could get a signal it would be acceptable in electronic form. I agree it's safest to carry a hard copy with you in case of signal problems but only as a back up. There is also anecdotal evidence that train companies do accept Etickets so customers are bound to be confused.

As for travelling between Berwick and York being clear well not at all. It seems it's also ok for intermediate stations eg Darlington although that isn't clear from the statement. What about Doncaster to Edinburgh which involves travelling between Berwick and york? It's perfectly reasonable to assume that if you can show you have a valid ticket ( and obviously having paid for the full journey between Doncaster and Edinburgh) between Berwick and York then what's the problem? The restriction that you have to travel between Berwick and York might be as I say because of the strength of signal so you c.an only show your Eticket between those stations.

 

[snail]

I can't see anyone really getting too confused in this instance between Berwick Upon Tweed and the small village of Berwick in Sussex.

If you are travelling in north east england, only a pedant would be confused.

It's a bit like the Northern Rail platform displays at places like Leyland showing trains stopping at Preston (Lancs). I don't think anyone is going to think it's any other Preston.

 

[island]

Thanks but it's not clear. In capitals you refer to Eticket conditions and then in small print it says what the conditions are for printing. Fine of course if you print it out I can accept it needs to be clear so that it can be scanned.

But why refer to it as an Eticket ( e usually understood to be electronic) at all if it's not acceptable in electronic form. And you are wrong I didn't book the wrong date, I booked several dates in advance including the correct date of travelling. I printed out the hard copy for the wrongly dated journey, but given that the ticket is referred to as an Eticket I thought that provided I could get a signal it would be acceptable in electronic form. I agree it's safest to carry a hard copy with you in case of signal problems but only as a back up. There is also anecdotal evidence that train companies do accept Etickets so customers are bound to be confused.

As for travelling between Berwick and York being clear well not at all. It seems it's also ok for intermediate stations eg Darlington although that isn't clear from the statement. What about Doncaster to Edinburgh which involves travelling between Berwick and york? It's perfectly reasonable to assume that if you can show you have a valid ticket ( and obviously having paid for the full journey between Doncaster and Edinburgh) between Berwick and York then what's the problem? The restriction that you have to travel between Berwick and York might be as I say because of the strength of signal so you c.an only show your Eticket between those stations.

You purchased a ticket, one of the conditions of which was that you print something on clean white paper and carry it with you. You did not, for whatever reason, comply with that condition. Therefore you did not have a valid ticket when travelling, and have committed a criminal offence under the Railway Bye-laws (which your beloved unfair terms regulations will not get in the way of). You have been offered the opportunity to avoid prosecution for the criminal offence you committed by paying the fare due and an administrative fee, and it is my personal advice that you take this opportunity and move on. If you feel that print at home tickets are not suitable for your future journeys for any reason, the options of collecting the ticket at the station or having the ticket posted out remain open to you.

Whether or not other customers on other journeys have occasionally been excused from compliance with the condition really has no relevance to your own personal case.

 

[Eticketer]

You purchased a ticket, one of the conditions of which was that you print something on clean white paper and carry it with you. You did not, for whatever reason, comply with that condition. Therefore you did not have a valid ticket when travelling, and have committed a criminal offence under the Railway Bye-laws (which your beloved unfair terms regulations will not get in the way of). You have been offered the opportunity to avoid prosecution for the criminal offence you committed by paying the fare due and an administrative fee, and it is my personal advice that you take this opportunity and move on. If you feel that print at home tickets are not suitable for your future journeys for any reason, the options of collecting the ticket at the station or having the ticket posted out remain open to you.

Whether or not other customers on other journeys have occasionally been excused from compliance with the condition really has no relevance to your own personal case.

Thanks but until we leave the EU, the unfair terms and regulations will override any claims that EC make that I owe them money. And I did have a valid ticket and showed it but the inspector refused to scan it.

 

[maniacmartin]

Thanks but until we leave the EU, the unfair terms and regulations will override any claims that EC make that I owe them money.

Whether you owe them money is irrelevant to a Byelaw prosecution. They don't need to make such a claim.

 

[Eticketer]

Whether you owe them money is irrelevant to a Byelaw prosecution. They don't need to make such a claim.

Sorry but I find it ridiculous to suggest that there is a criminal offence involved and if according to some archaic bye law that were by some possibility to be the case then it is certainly long overdue for an overhaul of these bye laws. It's all very well to suggest moving on but unless someone makes a stand this sort of thing will keep on happening.

If there is a criminal offence involved I would say it is RPSS who are demanding money with menaces.

 

[soil]

There are some very interesting, but entirely irrelevant discussions here. The whole point is that Eticketer had printed the Print~@Home ticket and claims that its date did not reflect the purchased date. Well this is very bizarre as the printed ticket will be for the purchase, going into the account for bookings will only lead to the same pdf to print. The date on the ticket is that you booked.

Thereis then the issue of e-ticket, or not. Eticketer has tried to claim that it is an eticket and it says so in its conditions. Well yes and no, the conditions are:

SPECIFIC e-TICKET CONDITIONS
This is your travel document which must be retained and available for inspection during your journey. This ticket must be clearly printed on plain, clean, white paper

This is what is stated on the printed ticket!

Yes, but it clearly states that, at the very least, for a journey from Berwick to York, or York to Berwick, you DON'T have to print it on clean white paper, in fact you don't have to print it at all. So whatever is printed on the printed ticket is incorrect.

In addition, according to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which East Coast's tickets are sold under, an Electronic Ticket

"may be stored on a:
(i) Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card);
(ii) payment card or identity card;
(iii) mobile telephone;
(iv) personal organiser;
(v) other mobile electronic device; or
(vi) database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank Card."

According to what you say, they describe it as an 'e-ticket'. The term 'Electronic Ticket' has specific meaning, and a printed ticket is NOT an 'Electronic Ticket'. So if an 'e-Ticket' is NOT an Electronic Ticket, well that's very confusing. If an 'e-Ticket' IS an Electronic Ticket, then it can be stored on a 'mobile telephone' or 'other mobile electronic device', but not on paper.

 

[snail]

Sorry but I find it ridiculous to suggest that there is a criminal offence involved and if according to some archaic bye law that were by some possibility to be the case then it is certainly long overdue for an overhaul of these bye laws. It's all very well to suggest moving on but unless someone makes a stand this sort of thing will keep on happening.

If there is a criminal offence involved I would say it is RPSS who are demanding money with menaces.

I get it now. You think you are above the law. Many others have posted similar opinions here in the past. Do let us know how you get on in court.

 

[Flamingo]

Oh well, at this stage I am curious to see what will be the outcome. As I have pointed out on previous threads, the railway has been mounting successful prosecutions under the Regulation of the Railway acts for well over 150 years now, and the loopholes have by and large been closed.

Dave pointed out on a previous thread that a reaction to the indignation brought about by a challenge to a ticket is to instantly try to find some way to "put the other person in the wrong" so to speak, and look up a reading of the various bits of legislation to find a loophole. It's not usually successful, and might prove expensive. If the OP is prepared to accept this risk, then if they can keep us informed, it should be enlightening!

I think one of two things will happen - either someone in the TOC will show some sympathy to the OP's position as they did buy a ticket, and either out of pity or a wish to avoid negative publicity they will drop it - OR - the OP will be taken to court and fried! (I'd be tempted to say this would depend on the mood of the Prosecutions Dept & the OP's attitude. Both seem to be bad at the moment.)

 

[soil]

Oh well, at this stage I am curious to see what will be the outcome. As I have pointed out on previous threads, the railway has been mounting successful prosecutions under the Regulation of the Railway acts for well over 150 years now, and the loopholes have by and large been closed.

This isn't a loophole. You are permitted to use Electronic Tickets on the railways, the only question is whether or not the ticket he was sold was an Electronic Ticket or not.

If it was, then his ticket was valid.

If it wasn't, then he had no ticket at all.

 

[Flamingo]

Fair enough, let a judge decide.

 

[island]

Sorry but I find it ridiculous to suggest that there is a criminal offence involved and if according to some archaic bye law that were by some possibility to be the case then it is certainly long overdue for an overhaul of these bye laws. It's all very well to suggest moving on but unless someone makes a stand this sort of thing will keep on happening.

You may think it is ridiculous, but it is still the case. And the byelaws are not archaic in the slightest; they are under ten years old. Here's a link for your convenience, see section 18 (1).

You have committed an offence, and denying it, throwing around "EC laws" and "unfair terms and regulations" that you can't name, and blaming everyone else but yourself is unwise.

I suspect this thread is going to get closed soon as going around in circles, but I very strongly urge you to wind your neck in. You need to either get your cheque book out or get legal advice.

 

[transportphoto]

I just want to say 'let's see what the magistrates say' because we can keep going around in circles arguing whether he did or didn't present the ticket in a valid format, however I believe it to be reasonably clear that a widely advertised 'Print@Home' ticket is only valid when printed, it will be down to the defence to bring strong evidence that the ticket was presented in a valid format, even in this world of innocence until proven otherwise. If you want to play cards bringing in contract law then feel free, but even if it is just some 'archaic bye law' prosecution, I feel there is a pretty strong case here! I certainly wouldn't advise you to put in your own defence rather consulting a solicitor who specialises in railway law.

TP

 

[Mojo]

Whilst I would say to the OP that the law is not on your side, and I have no doubt ECT probably could mount a successful prosecution; some Toc's prosecutors and/or Magistrates/District Judges have been known in the past to act sympathetically towards some people and either let them off or may choose a penalty or punishment that is significantly less than the norm.

That all depends on the case in hand though and I suppose there's perhaps a mix of luck and how well you handle the situation with the company and the courts.

 

[Gemz91]

If the OP trufuly felt that showing his ticket on a moblie phone/laptop was a vaild means of producing a ticket, you have to question why he printed off the ticket in the first place. Its not until he got challenged about the vailidity of the ticket, that he felt this was an ok thing to do.

As for the between Berwick and York discusion, I'd have thought that this was trial run by East Coast, to gauge how succesful and popular this method was, before running the process out across the whole network. By introducing it on just a small strecth of their service, if for what ever reason they decided not to introduce it pernimatley, it will create far less confussion, then if they decided to introduce it network wide, then withdraw it. How ever, I rarely use East Coast, and never buy tickets online, so could just be talking mumble jumble.

 

[VauxhallandI]

You may think it is ridiculous, but it is still the case. And the byelaws are not archaic in the slightest; they are under ten years old. Here's a link for your convenience, see section 18 (1).

You have committed an offence, and denying it, throwing around "EC laws" and "unfair terms and regulations" that you can't name, and blaming everyone else but yourself is unwise.

I suspect this thread is going to get closed soon as going around in circles, but I very strongly urge you to wind your neck in. You need to either get your cheque book out or get legal advice.

"Unfair contract terms and conditions" is the actual term for dissolving parties liabilities under a contract that is deemed to have unfair clauses. In effect it is a name of a law.

That said "EC laws" is not a name of anything!

 

[sheff1]

I just want to say 'let's see what the magistrates say' because we can keep going around in circles arguing whether he did or didn't present the ticket in a valid format, however I believe it to be reasonably clear that a widely advertised 'Print@Home' ticket is only valid when printed ..

I don't find it 'reasonably clear' when EC state:

* 'you can even use your mobile phone to display the travel authorisation of your travel ticket' &

* 'So now you don’t have to worry about printing out a ticket and remembering to take it with you'

Never mind the issues of them apparently not knowing the name of a station they manage and limiting valid display to a specific Trade Marked device.

As others, I look forward to the outcome of this case with interest.

 

[island]

"Unfair contract terms and conditions" is the actual term for dissolving parties liabilities under a contract that is deemed to have unfair clauses. In effect it is a name of a law.

The law you are thinking of is called the "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, 1999". Section 4 (2) (a) of same says the law does not apply to mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions, for what that's worth.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The law you are thinking of is called the "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, 1999". Section 4 (2) (a) of same says the law does not apply to mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions, for what that's worth.

I was actually referring to the "Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977"

However it would seem that this applies to business contracts. Yours is for the consumer which is what the OP is in this case.

What if he was travelling for business? Which would cover?

 

[island]

Neither piece of legislation exempts someone from criminal liability for breaking a different law.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Neither piece of legislation exempts someone from criminal liability for breaking a different law.

No they don't

 

[soil]

Neither piece of legislation exempts someone from criminal liability for breaking a different law.

No indeed, the OP seems rather ill-equipped to defend himself on this case, as he apparently has already submitted a rather misguided defence on the basis of unfair terms, which was unsurprisingly rejected.

At this point he can pay East Coast and be done with it, or pay a lawyer and keep on going, because this hasn't been handled well so far.

 

[michael769]

Fair enough, let a judge decide.

Unfortuately the OP would be unlikely to face a judge but instead a magistrate who would not be willing (and possibly unqualified) to consider the issues raised, leaving the OP hoping to cast enough doubt in the magistrates mind (doubt the the prosecution will work hard to remove) that they are not sufficiently convinced that the offence was comitted, and failing that facing the additional expense of an appeal to get the issues heard by a judge.

Unfair terms legislation specifically excludes travel tickets.

 

[jon0844]

Could the OP not pay up and then take a separate action against EC on the basis that it seems the company has published a load of contradictory information all over the place?

Even a letter fired off to the right people might just get the money back as goodwill gesture, and avoid a day in court.

Dare I say it that the OP could even consider going to the media, which is likely to have an even quicker resolution?!

 

[wijit]

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

If you read the OP properly you would see that he is a regular customer of East Coast, and had purchased an e-ticket for the day of travel AS WELL AS a ticket for the following week. The issue was that he had printed out the wrong ticket.

Roll eyes all you like. He did not have the correct tick at that time, and therefore did not have a contract. Perhaps taking your own advice about reading.....?

 

[jon0844]

Roll eyes all you like. He did not have the correct tick at that time, and therefore did not have a contract. Perhaps taking your own advice about reading.....?

Hence me thinking that it's easier to pay up, but then get on to EC because it has - for whatever reason - suggested that in some cases, and not that clearly for even the experts on here to be 100% sure - you can show your barcode on the screen of your iPhone (but that's stupid as it could be any smartphone, tablet or laptop).

 

[soil]

Roll eyes all you like. He did not have the correct tick at that time, and therefore did not have a contract. Perhaps taking your own advice about reading.....?

:roll:

He most certainly had a contract, contract law, as has been explained, is not the issue here, the issue here is the railway byelaws.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

which state

"no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel"

Again, it comes down to whether or not he had a valid ticket.

Valid ticket is defined:

'“valid ticket” means a ticket (including any associated photo/identity card and/or other travel document) lawfully obtained by or on behalf of the person using or attempting to use it and entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use. Where the terms attaching to the ticket require validation of the ticket, such ticket shall not be considered to be a valid ticket for the purposes of these Byelaws unless and until the ticket has been properly validated.'

'ticket' is also defined

“ticket” includes
(i) a ticket (including one issued by or on behalf of another railway undertaking) authorising the person for whom it is issued to make the journey covered by the fare paid on a train provided by an Operator (whether or not it also authorises that person to make a journey on a train provided by another railway undertaking)
(...)
(v) any type of free pass, privilege ticket, or any warrant, identity card,
voucher, or other similar authority accepted by an Operator as
authority to travel, or in exchange for or on production of which a ticket
for travel may be issued,
(vi) any identity card, reservation or other document required by an
Operator to be held or produced for use with other travel documents,
(vii) any type of smart card, pre-pay, or other form of electronic ticket



The law is not trivial - East Coast assert that he did not 'have with him a valid ticket', but this is a matter of interpretation of law and fact and unless you are aware of case law clarifying this issue, I wouldn't like to say what the correct interpretation is.

If print@home tickets are electronic tickets, then the OP had a valid ticket with him. If they are not electronic ticket, then he had no ticket with him at all.

 

[Eticketer]

Whether you owe them money is irrelevant to a Byelaw prosecution. They don't need to make such a claim.

Fine, so whether I pay up or not , they could still prosecute as the so called criminal act has already been committed the minute I boarded the train? So why should I now pay up if there's no guarantee they won't prosecute anyway?

There doesn't seem to be a clear link between payment of the money they claim is owed and the waiving of criminal prosecution, as there is with fixed penalty fares for speeding say.

It seems as I say the RPSS is demanding money with menaces; pay up or we will prosecute.

No I don't think even the conditions printed in small print are clear. what someone seems to say is effectively the conditions of this Eticket are that it is not an Eticket at all. Which I find very confusing.

I printed a hard copy in case I couldn't get a signal.

As for soils point that I haven't handled this very well at all, well he may be right, but the fact remains that I consider that I had a valid ticket and everything really flows from that.

No I don't think I am above the law whoever flamed that is out of order. I believe it is not in the public interest to prosecute people who have made honest mistakes, especially in these circumstances. If I wanted act entirely out of self interest the easiest thing to do would be to pay up. I believe I am acting in the public interest so this sort of thing doesn't happen again

 

[bb21]

Fine, so whether I pay up or not , they could still prosecute as the so called criminal act has already been committed the minute I boarded the train? So why should I now pay up if there's no guarantee they won't prosecute anyway?

There doesn't seem to be a clear link between payment of the money they claim is owed and the waiving of criminal prosecution, as there is with fixed penalty fares for speeding say.

You have a bill for the journey you failed to present a valid ticket for. The bill is for a valid ticket for that journey. Once you have paid the bill, there will no longer be any ground for prosecution.

(I know that you don't agree that you failed to present a valid ticket. Leave that on the side for a moment for now. I am just trying to explain how this works.)

 

[cmovcc]

I suspect a magistrate might find you technically guilty, then not fine you anything, and order the TOC to pay costs for bringing such a silly suit to the court.

(note that I am not a lawyer!)

I would write to the TOC's customer service (copying in the managing director and PR department) explaining the situation, that you understand that fare evasion is a large problem for the industry, and that you are a regular, honest, high-fare paying customer that spends a great deal of money on the railway each year, and that you would like the case dropped as a matter of goodwill.

if you wish you could allude that you could certainly stop travelling by first class in the future, or even change modes of transport all together, but I wouldn't threaten anything, just insinuate!