Failure to Pay (incorrect I think)

[OffertonBlue]

455driver - The offence was boarding the train without a valid ticket where suitable facilities were available.

Just to clarify for 455driver and all readers. I have no problem that if my daughter has done something wrong she gets punished. Actually we have already paid the fine, so we are not trying to avoid paying the fine. My concern is that things are done correctly and accurately and procedure is followed.(quite probably this does not matter but it does to me).

My concern is with the summons and subsequent statements. The summons states (I quote directly) "did travel on railway without having previously paid the fair of £5.90 and with the intent to avoid payment thereof"

The witness statement states (I quote directly) "I explained to Miss XXX because she has travelled from Hazel grove station and purchased a ticket from Stockport station to Leeds, I would take her details and report the matter"

Neither of the above statements simply state The offence was boarding the train without a valid ticket where suitable facilities were available. Which I would happily accept and close the matter. My problem was with the implication that she had avoided paying £5.90 which I maintain is incorrect.

Therefore my original question was "if no fare had been avoided, was a crime committed?" However now in view of DaveNewcastle's reply indicating that even though the fares are the same the contract is station-to-station and hence she did commit a crime. I still don't understand why NorthernRail complicated matters and didn't just state The offence was boarding the train without a valid ticket where suitable facilities were available for me the £5.90 part just clouds the issue. Not least because it is not correct.

gray1404 - I am not a fan of the Northern £80 fines, however, to avoid any further action being taken against your daughter, when invited to do so send in an account of what happened,

Thanks for the advice - sadly we did not receive a letter asking for an explanation or a fixed penalty notice. The first we heard was when we got the Summons to court. All my daughters mail comes to my house and I can categorically state we received no communication prior to the summons (this alone seems odd to me).

We have a number of complaints regarding this episode and being prosecuted for FtP is not one of them. Accuracy of statements, attitude of Northern Rail etc we are currently pursuing.

 

[steve a]

The offence was boarding the train without a valid ticket where suitable facilities were available, that is the problem and talk of 'its the same price from Stockport' does not change that!

You can focus on what you like but the offence has been committed!

A train I frequently catch from Stockport to Oxford Road starts at Hazel Grove. The guard usually goes through the train asking if anybody wants a ticket. Quite a few people buy tickets on the train. As you can't get on the platform at Stockport without a ticket, they must have come from Hazel Grove or Davenport. Even though there are facilities to buy a ticket at the station, it looks like boarding the train without ticket is accepted.

 

[najaB]

My problem was with the implication that she had avoided paying £5.90 which I maintain is incorrect.

Unfortunately, a £5.90 ticket from Stockport to Leeds is not the same thing as a £5.90 ticket from Hazel Grove to Leeds.

I know that it seems strange, but it is the case - the fact that, by coincidence, the prices for those particular tickets happens to be the same doesn't change the fact that they are different tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even though there are facilities to buy a ticket at the station, it looks like boarding the train without ticket is accepted.

Buying on board may be accepted, but buying on board by claiming to have started at a station other than the one you boarded at is not.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The wording which you suggest ("The offence was boarding . . . facilities were available.") simply isn't in any statute, so while it may be a plain English description of your daughter's actions, only the Revenue Protection regulations published in Statutes or in Byelaws can be used to actually protect that revenue.
I really can't see that anything should hang on this distinction - it is a distinction that applies to every single law, whether in legislation or in Common Law.

- - - Edit over lunch - - -

Just to expand on the explanation above, the two statements which you are finding to be inconsistent are actually serving different roles. One is the legislation (edited to suit the circumstances) and the other is an extract from the Evidence ( edited to suit the offence). It will be for a Court to decide if the Evidence does really satisfy the requirements of the legislation and its associated Case Law, and for the Defence to offer arguments that it does not.
Think for a minute about an example you are familiar with, for example, evidence might be something specific that the scaffolding workers above me did, while the Offence might be 'negligence'. The two will have very different wording on a Summons.

 

[455driver]

455driver - The offence was boarding the train without a valid ticket where suitable facilities were available.

Just to clarify for 455driver and all readers. I have no problem that if my daughter has done something wrong she gets punished. Actually we have already paid the fine, so we are not trying to avoid paying the fine. My concern is that things are done correctly and accurately and procedure is followed.(quite probably this does not matter but it does to me).

She walked past an open ticket office and boarded the train without a valid ticket, that shows intent because otherwise she would have used the ticket office.

Trying to buy a ticket at the other end because the ticket gates are closed/there is a revenue block does not show intent to pay.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Dave is of course spot-on as always and the wording likely to have been used if Summonses were issued will be either:

'Did enter a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket contrary to National Railway Byelaw 18.1 (2005)'

if charged with the Byelaw offence

or

'Did travel on a railway without having previously paid her fare and with the intention of avoiding payment thereof contrary to Section 5(3)(A) of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

if charged with the more serious offence.

455driver makes the valid point that the Section 5 offence might be pursued because of the ruling in Corbyn 1978 which, in essence says that intending to pay only if asked to do so is not an unqualified intention to pay the fare, but an intention not to pay if not asked. A prosecutor might choose to pursue this line of thought in some cases.


From my reading of this thread, if this were prosecuted the first of these two allegations is the most likely to be used in my opinion and is a strict liability matter in any case.

As others have pointed out, both Hazel Grove and Stockport have full ticket facilities available for use of the travelling public and the traveller in this case did not already hold a valid ticket and did not pay the fare before getting on the train.

 

[clagmonster]

Just to clarify for 455driver and all readers. I have no problem that if my daughter has done something wrong she gets punished. Actually we have already paid the fine, so we are not trying to avoid paying the fine.

It sounds to me as it it case closed. As a matter of interest, was your daughter convicted in a court and so you actually paid a fine, or do you settle with Northern out of court?

I am struggling to see how £5.90 has been arrived at. Can anybody else see a relevant £5.90 fare? I would expect, seeing as Stockport-Leeds had been paid, the fare evaded to have been either Hazel Grove-Leeds, which is £20.90, or Hazel Grove-Stockport, which is £2.10.

 

[najaB]

I am struggling to see how £5.90 has been arrived at. Can anybody else see a relevant £5.90 fare? I would expect, seeing as Stockport-Leeds had been paid, the fare evaded to have been either Hazel Grove-Leeds, which is £20.90, or Hazel Grove-Stockport, which is £2.10.

I don't know where £5.90 came from either, just going with it as that's what the OP wrote.

 

[reb0118]

I don't know where £5.90 came from either, just going with it as that's what the OP wrote.

There is a £5.90 fare here but it is a SDR?

 

[OffertonBlue]

It sounds to me as it it case closed. As a matter of interest, was your daughter convicted in a court and so you actually paid a fine, or do you settle with Northern out of court?

I am struggling to see how £5.90 has been arrived at. Can anybody else see a relevant £5.90 fare? I would expect, seeing as Stockport-Leeds had been paid, the fare evaded to have been either Hazel Grove-Leeds, which is £20.90, or Hazel Grove-Stockport, which is £2.10.

Yes, I contacted Northern Rail when we received the summons to firstly complain that we had not received any communication prior to the summons. Also to point out several inaccuracies in the statement to court. Including one which I thought fairly serious. That being the person making the statement "did not talk to my daughter". Plus also to ask for confirmation of where the £5.90 came from.
Northern Rail firstly said we had to pay £150 plus the fare balance. Again I asked for confirmation of the fare balance. Then they came back with a random offer (as far as I was concerned), that being a £100 fine and the case would not go to court. I accepted this as I didn't want to risk any further action on my daughter.

But I thought that Northern Rail should still be made aware of the behaviour of their staff, the inaccuracies in a statement to court and a couple of other minor issues. Hence I sent in my complaint (July 1st).

 

[455driver]

But I thought that Northern Rail should still be made aware of the behaviour of their staff, the inaccuracies in a statement to court and a couple of other minor issues. Hence I sent in my complaint (July 1st).

I would be more concerned about your daughters travelling habits rather than going on some sort of crusade against Northern!

If you felt so hard done by why didn't you let it go to Court where the alleged mistakes and errors could be used to prove innocence (she wasn't) but could possibly set a legal precedent, doing it after accepting guilt will not in any way change anything except waste your and several other peoples time.

Edit-
This post reads harsher than it is meant to so please bear that in mind.

 

[clagmonster]

There is a £5.90 fare here but it is a SDR?

Indeed, and it is from Stockport to Manchester, which has been paid as part of the Stockport to Leeds fare. Very odd. I suppose SDR could make sense if the Stockport - Leeds was a day return.

 

[OffertonBlue]

I would be more concerned about your daughters travelling habits rather than going on some sort of crusade against Northern!

If you felt so hard done by why didn't you let it go to Court where the alleged mistakes and errors could be used to prove innocence (she wasn't) but could possibly set a legal precedent, doing it after accepting guilt will not in any way change anything except waste your and several other peoples time.

Edit-
This post reads harsher than it is meant to so please bear that in mind.

455driver - Fortunately I have the mental capacity to do more than one thing.

My daughter in a rush and in the heat of the moment made a mistake that had zero financial impact or pecuniary loss to Network Rail. That said her actions were totally illegal and I have dealt with this with my daughter. She will not do this again.

However you are bringing two points together in a false premise, that I have not made. My daughter was guilty therefore the "alleged mistakes and errors could not be used to prove her innocence. However that does not detract from the fact that someone who was not in a rush or in the heat of the moment, sat down and constructed a false statement to give to court. I cannot fathom why someone would do this. You may think this is not serious, but I actually believe this is very serious, as well as illegal.

If I had staff and they were making false statements to court I would want to know (I am sure Northern management will feel the same). Therefore this is not a crusade against Northern, it is certainly not trying to minimise my daughters actions, or waste peoples time. Rather it is my duty to report to a senior level what we believe is illegal activity. Once I have given the information it is for them to decide what to do with it.

 

[island]

Nobody has (yet) made any false statements to court in this case (nor any other statements for that matter), and nobody besides your daughter has committed any crimes. You are within your rights to make a complaint to Northern if you feel its handling of the case was somehow inappropriate but if you are expecting anything more than a terse response saying "we will deal with the matter appropriately/internally" you are likely to be disappointed.

 

[OffertonBlue]

Nobody has (yet) made any false statements to court in this case (nor any other statements for that matter), and nobody besides your daughter has committed any crimes. You are within your rights to make a complaint to Northern if you feel its handling of the case was somehow inappropriate but if you are expecting anything more than a terse response saying "we will deal with the matter appropriately/internally" you are likely to be disappointed.

Thanks Island. You are right the witness statement I have (in my hand) probably did not go to court in the end.

I maybe naïve, but I think (thought) Northern management would be interested in the fact that I have a witness statement signed by one of their staff detailing a conversation with my daughter that did not occur.

 

[DaleCooper]

OffertonBlue - I fear your sense of injustice is overwhelming your good judgment. It is understandable that you feel protective towards your daughter but I suspect your chosen path will only lead to worry, stress and disappointment for yourself and perhaps your daughter too.

 

[OffertonBlue]

OffertonBlue - I fear your sense of injustice is overwhelming your good judgment. It is understandable that you feel protective towards your daughter but I suspect your chosen path will only lead to worry, stress and disappointment for yourself and perhaps your daughter too.

I see how this is coming across. This is last time I will post. The two things are separate. My daughter did wrong, got caught and was punished...finished in my mind.

I have a Witness Statement in my possession that has a number of factual inaccuracies that we can prove unequivocally. Plus it was written by a person other than the person who dealt with my daughter. Someone sat down and wrote a false account, that was to be submitted to court. That is OK apparently.

 

[najaB]

My daughter in a rush and in the heat of the moment made a mistake that had zero financial impact or pecuniary loss to Network Rail. That said her actions were totally illegal and I have dealt with this with my daughter. She will not do this again.

Good to hear that, I'm sure the threat of legal action will stay with her for a long time. I hope it doesn't put her off rail travel in future. A pedantic point though - Network Rail fixes the tracks, signals, etc. they don't run trains. I'm guessing you meant Northern Rail.

I have a Witness Statement in my possession that has a number of factual inaccuracies that we can prove unequivocally. Plus it was written by a person other than the person who dealt with my daughter. Someone sat down and wrote a false account, that was to be submitted to court. That is OK apparently.

I don't know the people involved and I don't work for Northern Rail, but I do know that often the name on the badge is a pseudonym (so as to avoid people being harassed/stalked) so it is possible that it was actually one and the same person who wrote the report.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I see how this is coming across. This is last time I will post. The two things are separate. My daughter did wrong, got caught and was punished...finished in my mind.

I have a Witness Statement in my possession that has a number of factual inaccuracies that we can prove unequivocally. Plus it was written by a person other than the person who dealt with my daughter. Someone sat down and wrote a false account, that was to be submitted to court. That is OK apparently.

As others have said, they often use a pseudonym, but would have to submit real names to court. Also you claim factual inaccuracies based on your daughter's account of this. There are two sides to every story. Bear that in mind.

Unless you were there at the time, then either account could be true, or both could be completely false, you are not a witness.

 

[Ediswan]

I have a Witness Statement in my possession that has a number of factual inaccuracies that we can prove unequivocally.

Factual inaccuracies in witness statements are normal. It is not uncommon for even independent third party witnesses to an incident to give contradictory accounts.

 

[DasLunatic]

We firmly believe that there was no price difference from either Stockport or Hazel Grove.

According to National Rail...

An adult return from Hazel Grove to Leeds is £21.00.
An adult return from Stockport to Leeds is £22.50.

Therefore, Mr. Inspector has plenty of right to call a penalty fare. Yes, it's only £1.50 but this is Northern we're talking about. They follow a completely different set of rules.

 

[455driver]

Is the 'false' witness statement signed by your daughter?
I thought she would have had to sign the book after the last sentence as proof that is what was said at the time!

Or is the 'false' statement merely a brief list of the evidence that NR would have taken to Court if it had got that far where of course the statement given at the time of the offence would have been offered?

 

[DaleCooper]

According to National Rail...

An adult return from Hazel Grove to Leeds is £21.00.
An adult return from Stockport to Leeds is £22.50.

Therefore, Mr. Inspector has plenty of right to call a penalty fare. Yes, it's only £1.50 but this is Northern we're talking about. They follow a completely different set of rules.

I think it was a single @£20.90 either journey but anyway I get £21.00 for both returns.

 

[najaB]

Therefore, Mr. Inspector has plenty of right to call a penalty fare.

Hate to be "that guy", but there was never a Penalty Fare involved here. Northern were considering prosecution.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Hate to be "that guy", but there was never a Penalty Fare involved here. Northern were considering prosecution.

Which is fair enough as it was a slam dunk byelaw, and a pretty convincing RoRA.

That said, it seems the matter has been resolved out of court.

 

[OffertonBlue]

As others have said, they often use a pseudonym, but would have to submit real names to court. Also you claim factual inaccuracies based on your daughter's account of this. There are two sides to every story. Bear that in mind.

Unless you were there at the time, then either account could be true, or both could be completely false, you are not a witness.

Although I am responding to this quote, my reply is also a response to the other posters with similar points.

I did not say there are factual inaccuracies that according to my daughter are not true. Or I rather think they may not be true (or some other variant of that sentiment). If you read what I carefully wrote, I wrote the following factual inaccuracies that we can prove unequivocally Google Definition of unequivocally - unequivocal/adjective leaving no doubt; unambiguous. Yes there are couple of statements that are open to dispute without independent verification (even though one assertion is frankly laughable), but one in particular (in black and white) that we can prove unequivocal is not true.

Your first point the anomaly over the name was because the statement person (making an assumption from his name) had changed ethnicity. So again to ensure accuracy we returned to Piccadilly station and requested the badge number/official identification from the person.

The statement is not signed by my Daughter. It is the Witness Statement that was to be submitted to the court I believe.

One of the reasons I wanted to make someone aware of the inaccuracies is because at the top of the statement it says the following "I shall be liable to prosecution if I wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true"

 

[8J]

OffertonBlue - you do have a point about the handling of this by Northern if what you are saying is correct. Yes an offence was committed but let's not forget that these ticket inspectors employed by STM security (not Northern) are in some cases very unprofessional. I do think that the FTP notice given is correct but both Northern staff and passengers are fed up with the inconsistencies from the STM staff and I think an email to customer relations saying that you are not happy will suffice. Whether they do anything about it.... Well that's for you to work out.

 

[najaB]

Your first point the anomaly over the name was because the statement person (making an assumption from his name) had changed ethnicity.

'Shocked' doesn't even come close to my reaction to this statement.

 

[OffertonBlue]

'Shocked' doesn't even come close to my reaction to this statement.

Please expand, why are you 'Shocked' by this statement.

 

[DaleCooper]

Please expand, why are you 'Shocked' by this statement.

Presumably it's the idea that you can tell a person's ethnicity from their name.

Ever heard of Muhammad Ali, Yusuf Islam, Charlie Williams, Freddie Mercury?