Fare avoidance - northern rail

[Worried]

I normally buy weekly tickets and my last one run out on friday. On saturday, i got the train to work (2 stops). The station doesnt have a ticket office but has a machine to get tickets from, but because i wanted to pay in cash decided id buy my ticket on the train instead as ive done lots of times. On the train, a huge group of about 20 men got on and the conducter spent the whole journey (only about 10 mins) selling them tickets and didnt get to where i was sat.
When i left the train, i didnt get asked for a ticket. I headed over to the ticket desk anyway to buy my weekly ticket, but after a few seconds decided to leave as i was running a bit late for work anyway and buy the weekly ticket before got the train home later.
I know this was stupid, i know the fares due when you make the journey, not 6 hours later! But i just thought no ones asked to see my ticket anyway and it wasnt like i would save any money/northern rail would loose money, they would get the same payment but later that day.
Anyway this must have drawn attention to me because i was stopped as i left the station and they took down my details accusing me of trying to avoid paying.

I've been reading stories of being prosecuted and getting a criminal record, which im terrified about as im finishing my law degree this year and it would destroy any chance i have of being a solicitor. I admit i breached the byelaw because i didnt buy a ticket at the first opportunity, but could i be guilty under the regulationof railways act - intention to avoid the fare too? I was always going to pay the right amount as i was purchasing a weekly ticket, but its not really acceptable to pay the fare 6 hours later!

Im going to write a grovelling letter apologising and offering to pay their costs etc. My question is do i offer an amount in my letter? It looks like they normally settle out of court for £150-200, so would offering an even higher amount and/or enclosing a cheque make them more likely to agree? Or is it better to wait for them to ask for an amount? I have savings of about £500 and am willing to pay them all of this to prevent a criminal record. Im not a dishonest person, never ever been in trouble before, and im so worried that this one stupid decision could have wrecked my whole career that iv barely ate or slept in 2 days. If id have realised how serious the consequences could be, i obviously wouldnt have even considered it.

Ps. Will it help to send them copies of my previous weekly tickets showing that i always have one? I bought the weekly ticket on my journey home too as planned.

Any advice will be gratefully received !

 

[bb21]

I think you need to calm down first. Wait for their letter to arrive and that will likely take a few weeks.

Meanwhile write down exactly what happened on a piece of paper while you can still remember it. Railway companies don't take kindly to inconsistencies.

What conversation took place? Do you remember what was said exactly during the conversation with the RPI?

 

[Nick W]

I admit i breached the byelaw because i didnt buy a ticket at the first opportunity

Not true. The byelaw only requires you to buy a ticket if there "facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, [you] began [your] journey". I believe, but cannot confirm for sure, that facilities not providing the customer's intended method of payment but otherwise in working order do not satisfy the condition.

but could i be guilty under the regulationof railways act - intention to avoid the fare too?

Corbyn v Saunders 1977 could be used against you. However your case differs in that you had a clear plan in mind to make the due payment.

I wouldn't apologise. Your actions were also in the TOC's interest by reducing the queue during busy times. I'd simply present the facts clearly and honestly when questioned. I would not mention, unless questioned, whether you had working credit/debit card at the time and merely state that you intended to pay in cash (presumably to enable an immediate refund upon purchasing the season ticket).

 

[bb21]

Not true. The byelaw only requires you to buy a ticket if there "facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, [you] began [your] journey". I believe, but cannot confirm for sure, that facilities not providing the customer's intended method of payment but otherwise in working order do not satisfy the condition.

Yes, he did fail to pay at the first available opportunity unfortunately. The first available opportunity was at the destination station's ticket office.

I wouldn't apologise. Your actions were also in the TOC's interest by reducing the queue during busy times. I'd simply present the facts clearly and honestly when questioned. I would not mention, unless questioned, whether you had working credit/debit card at the time and merely state that you intended to pay in cash (presumably to enable an immediate refund upon purchasing the season ticket).

But that is not a valid argument. He passed an opportunity at his destination station. While I think it unlikely that intent could be established based on what we have been told so far, the OP has still committed an offence, technically.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I admit i breached the byelaw because i didnt buy a ticket at the first opportunity, but could i be guilty under the regulationof railways act - intention to avoid the fare too?

Yes, intent can occur at any time, it does not have to be evident at the outset.

Your intention at the outset was to pay the fare due at the first opportunity. That was the machine at the station at which you boarded the train and in most cases, but not all, machines take cash as well as cards.

At that point there was no 'Mens Rea', in relation to avoiding a fare.

However, you then chose to board the train without paying so breach of Byelaw 18.1 is evident. (Strict liability). The fact that you did not pay on board is unfortunate, but doesn't alter what had gone before nor what happened later.

You joined the queue with the intention of paying, but changed your mind. Once you decided to leave without paying, you exhibit a different state of mind, an intention to leave without paying.

It is clear that you suggest that you intended to pay later and therefore not permanently avoid the fare, but it is this very point that the Corbyn (1978) judgment focused on. Lord Widgery and others decided that it was not necessary to import the adverb 'permanently' into Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act.

You have made clear that you are training as a lawyer and you have also made clear that you knew that the fare was due at the time of travel and not later.

Yes, it is likely that a good prosecutor may charge both offences. They may choose to discontinue one or the other dependent on your response.

I suggest that you wait for the letter from the TOC and then consider writing an apology, explain that it was a momentary and rash decision to attempt to leave without paying.

You might explain that conviction would have a wholly disproportionate effect on your chosen career path, give an undertaking not to travel without a valid ticket in future and offer to pay the fare and all of the reasonable costs incurred by the TOC in dealing with your actions if an alternative disposal can be permitted..

 

[Worried]

Thanks for your replies, this is a very useful forum and it nice for you to use your time offering advice to people. I'm a 'she' btw .

I was wondering if there has been any cases which considered the time scales meant by intending to avoid payment, so thanks. Ive read up on Corbyn v Saunders and it doesnt look good, my circumstances are a bit different, but i wouldnt really want to risk it and asking them to settle out of court is definately the better option.

This is going to be the longest 3/4 weeks ive ever waited!

Can anyone advise on whether its a good idea to offer an amount in the original letter and enclose a cheque? Would they be more likely to agree if they already have the cheque and dont have to write to me again requesting it?
Or would it be viewed as arrogant, as though im just assuming theyll agree, or that im trying to buy my way out of trouble?

I just want to make sure i get the letter as right as possible!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And to answer your question bb21,

He stopped me and started taking down my contact details and checked my driving licence, then i signed the page to say id provided these details.
On the next page he wrote down my answers to questions - why didnt i buy a ticket before hand - why didnt i buy on the train - why was i leaving without paying?

Ive since read that he should have did the speach 'things you say may be used as evidence etc' if he was going to put this in a statement that could be used in court? He didnt, he was being really nice saying 'Im not saying you're in trouble, i just need to take down your details and you'll get a letter from us', but if he writes that he did read my rights then i guess i cant prove otherwise. I was worried thinking id be getting a £60 fine... cant believe i was worried about £60 now i know what could actually happen!

 

[Monty]

Can anyone advise on whether its a good idea to offer an amount in the original letter and enclose a cheque? Would they be more likely to agree if they already have the cheque and dont have to write to me again requesting it?
Or would it be viewed as arrogant, as though im just assuming theyll agree, or that im trying to buy my way out of trouble?!

I would strongly advise against sending Northern Rail any monies until they agree to settle out of court. That is indeed if Northern Rail are willing to in the first place, as you said it can appear arrogant seem like you are trying to avoid the issue by 'buying' your way out of trouble. When I was an inspector for South West Trains, I have known of cases where the company have simply just sent the cheque back with the court summons!

I'll get to the point, Northern do have an open and shut case for a Section 5 3a (Regulation of the Railways Act 1889) prosecution, if convicted will result in a criminal record. It'll be an easy conviction as they have you leaving the last point of payment at the station. So when writing back to them I would be exceptionally apologetic for what has happened, inform them it'll never happen again and offer to settle the matter outside of court.

I am in two minds to suggest to you not offer a sum until Northern write back and ask what you had in mind for a settlement. But I would at least offer (when the time comes) the fare owed plus £150 for admin costs, don't be to surprised if Northern ask for more if they do write back with a sum in mind.

Ive since read that he should have did the speach 'things you say may be used as evidence etc' if he was going to put this in a statement that could be used in court?

Only PACE trained inspectors can question under caution (a bit like the caution a police officer uses when they arrest you). Staff who are not trained to question passengers under caution will simply write a summary of the incident and add any infomation you may given them (a bit like a story if you like), if questioned under caution the inspector needs to write exactly what you say.

Best thing you can do know is not to panic and wait until you receive further correspondence Northern Rail, if you want someone to proof read your reply I am sure one of us would be happy to do that for you.

 

[jb]

Off-topic, but it blows my mind that a final year law student can replace "issued a PACE caution" with: "did the speach 'things you say may be used as evidence etc'"

 

[Deerfold]

Off-topic, but it blows my mind that a final year law student can replace "issued a PACE caution" with: "did the speach 'things you say may be used as evidence etc'"

Even *done* the *speech*...wouldn't have been quite as bad.

 

[142094]

Off-topic, but it blows my mind that a final year law student can replace "issued a PACE caution" with: "did the speach 'things you say may be used as evidence etc'"

Good point - although with the anonymity the internet affords, I could claim to be the King of Spain and no-one would know otherwise...

 

[Deerfold]

Good point - although with the anonymity the internet affords, I could claim to be the King of Spain and no-one would know otherwise...

Unless the King of Spain was reading.

 

[455driver]

Good point - although with the anonymity the internet affords, I could claim to be the King of Spain and no-one would know otherwise...

How dare you impersonate me, the inquisition are on the way round young man!

 

[142094]

How dare you impersonate me, the inquisition are on the way round young man!

I'll get the boats ready for the Armada as well!

 

[TTI]

Worried:
in your case, with preceeding (and possibly successive) weekly season tickets able to be submitted in mitigation, why didn't you go back to the manned station slightly later (when the revenue squad weren't there) and bought a weekly season ticket?

Retrospective tickets bought after the time of the alleged offence usually have no standing but it would look good alongside a grovelling apology.
Might lighten the load - so to speak - if the ton of bricks fall on you.

EDIT: Ooops , just read the last sentence in your orig.post and you did buy your weekly on the way home!! (Didn't see that). Don't lose that season tkt!

 

[yorkie]

However, you then chose to board the train without paying so breach of Byelaw 18.1 is evident. (Strict liability)..

No, I think you are mistaken. The customer wished to pay by cash, which is a valid payment method. It is my understanding that many Northern machines are card-only. Therefore, passengers paying by cash do not have an opportunity to buy at their origin station.

 

[maniacmartin]

but has a machine to get tickets from, but because i wanted to pay in cash decided id buy my ticket on the train instead

Does the machine at your origin station accept cash? If it only accepts cards but you wanted to pay in cash, then I believe that the earliest opportunity to pay would have been on board. I don't believe you committed an offence at the start of the journey, but did so by passing the ticket office at the end of the journey.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I headed over to the ticket desk anyway to buy my weekly ticket, but after a few seconds decided to leave as i was running a bit late for work anyway and buy the weekly ticket before got the train home later.
I know this was stupid, i know the fares due when you make the journey, not 6 hours later! But i just thought no ones asked to see my ticket anyway and it wasnt like i would save any money/northern rail would loose money, they would get the same payment but later that day.
Anyway this must have drawn attention to me because i was stopped as i left the station and they took down my details accusing me of trying to avoid paying.

The OP seems to have a firm grasp of the details herself. Her question was 'could she be charged with attempted fare evasion'

She says she wanted to pay by cash, but does not say she did not have a payment card, however that is an irrelevance in the end

Yes, she could face a charge of avoiding a fare. The conscious decision to leave the station without paying is the important point.

She had completed her journey, had had opportunity to pay, but had chosen not to do so and says, "I was stopped as I left the station"

 

[yorkie]

Yes. The conscious decision to leave the station without paying is the important point.

Agreed.

The other point about the Byelaw 18 offence, is not applicable because that is not what the OP is being accused of. It is what happened at the destination that is the matter in hand.

That said, I still believe a false accusation has been made regarding the OPs actions at the origin by wishing to pay by cash (which is a perfectly acceptable payment method) and I stand by my objection to that particular point.

If I find out that the rail industry is acting, or can act, in the manner you describe by making such allegations, I will take that as high up as it needs to go, believe me. It may not be relevant to the OP, but it is relevant for others.

 

[Nick W]

It is clear that you suggest that you intended to pay later and therefore not permanently avoid the fare, but it is this very point that the Corbyn (1978) judgment focused on. Lord Widgery and others decided that it was not necessary to import the adverb 'permanently' into Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act.

I actually think that it would have to go to court for us to know for certain. Corbyn had no intention of paying without being asked - that was intent to evade. The OP had an intention of paying without being asked at a later date.

I think it gets more interesting. The law says "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;"
not "having travelled, shows intent to avoid payment".

Yes, he did fail to pay at the first available opportunity unfortunately. The first available opportunity was at the destination station's ticket office.

I agree - but that is irrelevant for a bye-law offence.

 

[Fare-Cop]

The OP had an intention of paying without being asked at a later date.

Yes, I agree, it would need to go to Court to be certain.

I would reverse words in your sentence above to illustrate the uncertainty further.

'The OP had intention of paying at a later date without being asked'

The OP is in her last year of training to be a lawyer and she has recognised the important point that the legislation makes clear, the fare is due at the time of travel and not later.

Changed intent can occur at any time and a Court will always recognise this.

Knowing that the fare is due there and then, having set out with the intention to pay and having had opportunities to do so, but not having paid, the OP changed her intention and decided to leave without paying and she attempted to do so.

She was caught in the act of leaving the station having not paid.

Ask yourself how likely it is that the Magistrates will be sympathetic if I pick up a bottle of Scotch in Tesco and because the check-out queues are long, I decide to walk out with it and when I am stopped by the security guard I reply,

'I was going to pay when I come in tomorrow'.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Off-topic, but it blows my mind that a final year law student can replace "issued a PACE caution" with: "did the speach 'things you say may be used as evidence etc'"

As if we would ever judge anyone by the way they expressed themselves!
[Though I did ask myself the question of how confident I would feel having taken advice on a matter of Law from this aspiring legal professional. No doubt a fuller understanding will develop during a few years as a junior dealing with routine immigration, conveyancing or divorces than from a few years at University.]

The significance of this remark is to cast doubt on how reliable the OP's opening description on here is and how it may differ from that given to the Inspector, in helping us to test it against the Law. There's been disagreement between forum members already, over the application of 'intent' as clarified by the Court of Appeal, and as used successfully by Railway Prosecutors up and down the land in hundreds of prosecutions every month. As we will have learnt from previous Judgements , 'intent' is displayed by a person's actions and words; we are not required to look into their minds; we don't use the everyday sense in 'intending to do or say something'.
When I apply the proven test of Corbyn and the definition of 'intent' to the OP's report, then I am unable to reach any other conclusion than that the incident is captured by the RoRA S.5 Offence. Thus far I am in agreement with maniacmartin and Fare-cop.

When the matter is being considered by the Company's Officers, then another variation of the report will be considered, and whatever is in the Inspector's report (the one who didn't "do the speach") will be considered. A different conclusion might be drawn from those and we cannot comment on that.

No, I think you are mistaken. The customer wished to pay by cash, which is a valid payment method. It is my understanding that many Northern machines are card-only. Therefore, passengers paying by cash do not have an opportunity to buy at their origin station.

I think we might be getting close to confusing Law with custom and practice or with local policies. It is not so much 'mistaken' to say that the OP's report confirms 'intent' but that there appears to be a non-binding but adopted code of practice which makes allowances for passengers travelling with some Operators and in certain situations (in this case, a situation which was not and could not have been anticipated when the legislation was drafted nor applicable when Corbyn's Appeal was being decided.); it is not a term of the Contract. Whether such a policy will be found to assist the OP or not in this particular matter is simply not something that any of us can anticipate with any certainty.
Additionally, the OP's opportunity to pay by other means and, crucially, how that might have been stated to the Inspector at the time, is likely to be a significant fact in reaching an opinion on whether to prosecute or not.

If I find out that the rail industry is acting, or can act, in the manner you describe by making such allegations, I will take that as high up as it needs to go, believe me. It may not be relevant to the OP, but it is relevant for others.

If "high up" refers to that house of fun at Bernard Street, then we must remember again that that Association's pronouncements are similarly non-binding and not-always adopted codes of practice which stand apart from the Law. And we must remember again to avoid confusing the two. The passenger's Contract will not have been with ATOC and is not governed by statements issued by staff there. We must be cautious in giving hope to the OP based on such assumptions.

I agree with Nick W and Fare-cop here:-

I actually think that it would have to go to court for us to know for certain.

The upshot of all this is that I don't believe we're assisting the OP by all this debate - there's not much more that can be said at present beyond bb21's advice in post No 2:-

I think you need to calm down first. Wait for their letter to arrive and that will likely take a few weeks.

Meanwhile write down exactly what happened on a piece of paper while you can still remember it. Railway companies don't take kindly to inconsistencies.

 

[island]

No, I think you are mistaken. The customer wished to pay by cash, which is a valid payment method. It is my understanding that many Northern machines are card-only. Therefore, passengers paying by cash do not have an opportunity to buy at their origin station.

It is unclear at law whether a passenger who wishes to pay in cash but has an acceptable card with sufficient available funds is excused from using the said card at a card-only TVM.

 

[thedbdiboy]

For the avoidance of doubt there's no way you could be successfully prosecuted under Byelaw 18 for joining a train without a ticket where you had the cash to pay for one and the only issuing facilities were card-only TVMs.

Whilst having a ticket or the means to pay for one are pre-requisites for travelling, possession of a credit or debit card is not!

 

[island]

Do you have a source for that assertion, please? (The first paragraph)

 

[Fare-Cop]

For the avoidance of doubt there's no way you could be successfully prosecuted under Byelaw 18 for joining a train without a ticket where you had the cash to pay for one and the only issuing facilities were card-only TVMs.

Whilst having a ticket or the means to pay for one are pre-requisites for travelling, possession of a credit or debit card is not!

I agree 100% with that assessment, however, whether or not the OP held a payment card was never referred to in the original post and I think that where this thread went off at a tangent was when other readers made the assumption that she did not. The OP says she wanted to pay by cash, nothing else. I think island makes this point too.

As always, we only have the brief provided by the OP and no knowledge of what, if any other relevant questions may have been asked by the inspector, but of course that will always be the nature of these forums.

I do think the most likely charge will be RoRA 5.3.a if they proceed at all.

I think DaveNewcastle & bb21 are spot-on, the OP will need to wait to see what the TOC have to say in their letter.

 

[yorkie]

The discussion regarding card-only ticket machines is now here:

Are passengers required to pay by card from certain stations?

Worried - please send me a PM when you have any further questions or when you have any further information about your case. I will then unlock this thread.

 

[Worried]

Just posting an update, as I know how annoying it was for me that threads always finished without the outcome included!

I didnt hear anything, so after 4 weeks i phoned them and was told the letters are taking longer to send out recently, and to just keep waiting.

I received a letter from them 2 days ago offering to settle the matter for £80 plus the cost of the single fare. They didnt even ask for an explanation etc. I phoned up and paid it yesterday, and thats the end of the matter.

I'm so relieved. Lesson definately learnt!

Thanks for everyone who gave me advice xx

 

[pinguini]

Great to hear the outcome wasn't too bad. Stories such as yours are a lesson to the rest of us to make sure we never make such a simple and easy to make mistake.

 

[Yew]

Good, however its worth bearing in mind that northern will keep this on record, and may not be so eager to drop the matter if you have another incident.

 

[Greenback]

Just posting an update, as I know how annoying it was for me that threads always finished without the outcome included!

Thanks for the update, it's appreciated!

I didnt hear anything, so after 4 weeks i phoned them and was told the letters are taking longer to send out recently, and to just keep waiting.

That doesn't surprise me. As they are cracking down they probably have mor epaperwork than ever to get through.

I received a letter from them 2 days ago offering to settle the matter for £80 plus the cost of the single fare. They didnt even ask for an explanation etc. I phoned up and paid it yesterday, and thats the end of the matter.

I'm so relieved. Lesson definately learnt!

Thanks for everyone who gave me advice xx

I'm glad it has all worked out. But as others have said, this will probably be kept on file, which may result in a different outcome in the future.