Etickets

[island]

I don't need to be patronized, thank you. The moderators will let me know if I am out of order; I am entitled to make a reasonable assessment of your argument as long as I don't make it personal, which I haven't.

The fact of the matter is you needed to print out your ticket and you didn't.

My knowledge of East Coast suggests that they tend to be reasonable on things like this and if you pay the UPFN, you may very well get a later refund or rail travel vouchers from customer services.

 

[Deerfold]

No matter how many times you repeat the word Eticket, or give it a capital letter, it doesn't change the fact that it is not used by East Coast. Absolutely no references can be found on East Coast's website, the only four results it brings up ALL refer to "Print@Home" only. I hardly think you can claim that that is a misleading term. You knew what a Print@Home ticket involved (hence you printed at home) but you made a mistake.

Even if they had used the word, you can't claim that it's a universal term with a clear meaning, it just isn't. You're just interpreting it to have a favourable meaning to your crusade because you feel it's an unfair penalty. Also you know fine well you're deliberately misinterpreting the phrase "between Berwick and York".

I got a parking ticket yesterday as I misread the signage. A mistake, but strict liability means the warden needed no proof of intent to park illegally. I accepted the fine with a sigh and some good grace. Move on, is this really worth your time??

I was with you until you started talking about parking - a parking warden cannot issue a fine.

 

[sheff1]

I also think the terms for using your phone on the York - Berwick issue which has muddied the waters, is pretty clear that it means soley from one station to the other - not, what a lot of you are hinting at.

It is not pretty clear at all. As has already been pointed out, the journey used to illustrate this option on the EC site starts from Darlington.

 

[jon0844]

And fact remains the inspector was clearly unaware of this even though we were travelling between York and berwick at the time. If the inspector doesn't know the rules how can customers be expected to?

I agree that it does sound very odd. If there's some special trial going on for travel between those two stations, the person on the train should have been equipped with the necessary equipment or have at least been aware of the 'exemption' to the printed on paper ticket 'rule'.

It would good to find out from EC exactly why there's the ability to show a ticket on your phone only from certain stations and why it isn't for the whole route.

As I've said before, EC may well give you the money back as a goodwill gesture if you can highlight the possible confusion. After all, many airlines began offering tickets to print at home but happily accept tickets on a phone/PDA/tablet/laptop too. It's just that when the concept of printing at home came about, not many people were likely to be travelling with a smartphone etc.

If they won't discuss the matter as there's an unpaid ticket, that's all the more reason to just stump up the cash and get this solved - avoiding a court that might well ignore all of the above and give you a larger penalty! Magistrates are not experts and will only be looking at the clear and obvious byelaw offence.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I was with you until you started talking about parking - a parking warden cannot issue a fine.

Ah, I wondered if this flavour of the month piece of pedantry would emerge (like it does on every one of these threads). Under UK law and definition you may tenuously be correct, but in the USA, such penalties are classed as fines. They require pleading guilty and payment of the fine by post or online. I have the option of going to court to fight it, but I have pleaded guilty and been fined without a trial. Which is exactly my advice to Eticketer.

 

[Deerfold]

Ah, I wondered if this flavour of the month piece of pedantry would emerge (like it does on every one of these threads). Under UK law and definition you may tenuously be correct, but in the USA, such penalties are classed as fines. They require pleading guilty and payment of the fine by post or online. I have the option of going to court to fight it, but I have pleaded guilty and been fined without a trial. Which is exactly my advice to Eticketer.

Sorry, I thought it important to be fairly precise about definitions when we're talking about legal matters. Not sure what's tenuous about it, not what the USA has to do with it.

Similarly, eticketer has not been issued with a fine, but an unpaid fare notice (apparently now including additional fees). If they do not pay it then EC may take it to court where a much larger fine may be deemed to be payable.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Sorry, I thought it important to be fairly precise about definitions when we're talking about legal matters. Not sure what's tenuous about it, not what the USA has to do with it.

I was fined in the state of Pennsylvania. I didn't say the OP was being fined. You brought up the definition of a fine!

 

[Deerfold]

I was fined in the state of Pennsylvania. I didn't say the OP was being fined. You brought up the definition of a fine!

Apologies, I incorrectly assumed that were were talking about something in the UK.

As it's something in a completely different legal system I'm now at a loss as to what relevance it has to the OP's predicament.

 

[jb]

Pedantry is only important when it's important - when precision adds value to the information.

But in this case, where the word "fine" was used (as many people do use it) to mean "amount of money that causes bad stuff to happen if it remains unpaid" then pedantry is pointless.

I hesitate to speak for other posters, but I am sure RV would happily say to eticketer: "Why don't you pay up the amount of money demanded that will cause bad stuff to happen if you don't pay it and move on?"

Well, he would if he enjoyed particularly inelegant verbiage.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Pedantry is only important when it's important - when precision adds value to the information.

But in this case, where the word "fine" was used (as many people do use it) to mean "amount of money that causes bad stuff to happen if it remains unpaid" then pedantry is pointless.

I hesitate to speak for other posters, but I am sure RV would happily say to eticketer: "Why don't you pay up the amount of money demanded that will cause bad stuff to happen if you don't pay it and move on?"

Well, he would if he enjoyed particularly inelegant verbiage.

Exactly, that's why i groan when "you have not been fined" is thrown at an unsuspecting poster worried anout the consequences of a penalty fare. It doesnt help them other than to confuse! I guess it's the nature of the forum.

Ironically the OP is talking about challenging the penalty on various points of pedantry!

 

[Deerfold]

If a poster thinks they have already been fined they may have an unpleasant surprise if their case then goes to court and they actually get a (usually much higher) fine.

 

[Eticketer]

I agree that it does sound very odd. If there's some special trial going on for travel between those two stations, the person on the train should have been equipped with the necessary equipment or have at least been aware of the 'exemption' to the printed on paper ticket 'rule'.

It would good to find out from EC exactly why there's the ability to show a ticket on your phone only from certain stations and why it isn't for the whole route.

As I've said before, EC may well give you the money back as a goodwill gesture if you can highlight the possible confusion. After all, many airlines began offering tickets to print at home but happily accept tickets on a phone/PDA/tablet/laptop too. It's just that when the concept of printing at home came about, not many people were likely to be travelling with a smartphone etc.

If they won't discuss the matter as there's an unpaid ticket, that's all the more reason to just stump up the cash and get this solved - avoiding a court that might well ignore all of the above and give you a larger penalty! Magistrates are not experts and will only be looking at the clear and obvious byelaw offence.

Yes, and if he says EC don't do Etickets then that knocks on the head some people's suggestion of what Eticket means. If its a ticket which is delivered electronically which has to be printed in hard copy form then yes they do do Etickets so he's wrong. But if an Eticket is what I think it means ie a ticket shown in electronic form well hes wrong about that too. EC do Etickets at least for passengers travelling between Berwick and York.

I am signing off now thanks for all the help. I will be back to let you know how I get on.

 

[Eticketer]

I started a thread now closed about Etickets in march.

By way of update, I can say that eastcoast have written to apologise and withdrawn the penalty notice .They say their online communications were ambiguous, and so they have changed their communications.

Even so, it's a salutary lesson, these companies don't mess about even in circumstances which seem unfair to the customer. I will try and be more careful next time, although I've been caught out again and had to buy a duplicate ticket due to losing the original. It's a bit tough especially when people are travelling , and rushing to catch a train, we all get flustered.

Thanks again to all the contributors to the original post. Most of them were very helpful. some who were emphatic that I should just pay the £130 were wrong, but like I say I certainly have learned something about just how draconian the bye laws can be.

 

[fenview]

Thanks for coming back with the final result.

The original thread is fascinating.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks for coming back and letting us know the outcome and I'm pleased that you got such a positive result.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I started a thread now closed about Etickets in march.

By way of update, I can say that eastcoast have written to apologise and withdrawn the penalty notice .They say their online communications were ambiguous, and so they have changed their communications.

Even so, it's a salutary lesson, these companies don't mess about even in circumstances which seem unfair to the customer. I will try and be more careful next time, although I've been caught out again and had to buy a duplicate ticket due to losing the original. It's a bit tough especially when people are travelling , and rushing to catch a train, we all get flustered.

Thanks again to all the contributors to the original post. Most of them were very helpful. some who were emphatic that I should just pay the £130 were wrong, but like I say I certainly have learned something about just how draconian the bye laws can be.

There's nothing wrong with the advice you were given to pay the penalty fare. You have been lucky and got away without going to court, but those "wrong" people were giving you a relatively inexpensive solution that avoided the possibility of court. You have played the percentages and won, in hindsight. Well done. But it doesn't mean the original advice was poor.

 

[b0b]

but in the USA, such penalties are classed as fines. They require pleading guilty and payment of the fine by post or online. I have the option of going to court to fight it, but I have pleaded guilty and been fined without a trial. Which is exactly my advice to Eticketer.

At the risk of going way off topic, I don't think you understand "parking fines" in the USA. Certainly in Illinois, the parking ticket goes against the illegally parked vehicle as they have no way of knowing who left the vehicle illegally parked.

 

[kieron]

There's nothing wrong with the advice you were given to pay the penalty fare. You have been lucky and got away without going to court

I doubt East Coast are in a habit of dropping a demand like this on their own initiative. If Eticketer rang East Coast up about this, and then followed the advice given by the person he spoke to, there was no risk at that stage.

I do understand that not paying the inspector a large sum of money when he first demanded it was risky, though.

 

[Royston Vasey]

At the risk of going way off topic, I don't think you understand "parking fines" in the USA. Certainly in Illinois, the parking ticket goes against the illegally parked vehicle as they have no way of knowing who left the vehicle illegally parked.

Explain how that is relevant to my point

Secondly what do technicalities of traffic laws in Illinois have to do with those in Pennsylvania? They are unrelated

 

[island]

Explain how that is relevant to my point

Secondly what do technicalities of traffic laws in Illinois have to do with those in Pennsylvania? They are unrelated

What do either of these have to do with railway ticketing or the topic at hand?

 

[yorkie]

It's always difficult to get analogies that fit. It's subjective and they can only be provided for amusement purposes, certainly not for legal/contractual purposes!

I am not surprised EC tried it on, but equally unsurprised EC didn't pursue it. But it's good to hear the outcome, thanks for letting us know! (Apologies, I recall you had sent me a PM previously but I didn't act on it)