Fearing prosecution! :(

[WorriedSick]

Hi guys
I apologise first of all if my explanation is not technically correct as I am very new to wording of the process.

I was stopped at a barrier back in February at manchester picadilly for a ticket check, and showed the ticket inspector what I assumed to be my ticket as it was in my coat pocket and I keep them there to be readily available. I gave this to the inspector who informed me that this was in fact yesterday's ticket.

I searched my other pockets and bag but at this point realised that I must have left the ticket in the machine at my initial station or dropped it at some point on my journey.

I apologised to the inspector for the error and explained the situation. He took my details and advised me I would just receive a letter in a few weeks asking for an explanation. I had offered to buy a new ticket as soon as I realised I had left the ticket behind but he said I couldn't as I had shown an incorrect ticket.

I appreciate from reading other posts now this is because he must assume I was trying to skip the fair which I assure you was not the case as I could see it was a full inspection and am not so Brazen as to try this deception!

I waited 4 weeks and received the first letter from National rail debt and prosecutions department asking for an explanation which I sent along with numerous previous tickets which I readily admit does not excuse this incident as I conceded in the letter but wanted to at least try to stop them thinking me a criminal as I would usually have a season ticket but at this point I was about to have 2 weeks off and only worked 3 days in Manchester that fortnight. I also apologised and conceded that, as I read on this forum, it was my error in not holding a valid ticket for inspection.

I added in the letter that I had bought my ticket by card, and so have now received a letter requesting proof of purchase in order to aid further investigation. I am happy to submit this as I have checked on my online statement that the payment shows on the correct date, however I do not have a paper copy and need to request this from my bank.

My issue is this. It is now Friday evening before a bank holiday weekend and my letter grants me 14 days from the date the letter was printed 29/4 and I have no way of requesting my statement until Tuesday, 8 days into my allowed time!

I won't get my statement in time so can I call to request an extension? Are they likely to allow this? Or should I submit my request for longer in writing?

Also my bank statements don't show times on them so will this even meet their 'proof of purchase' criteria?

I am incredibly anxious about this as have never been in trouble with the police or courts etc and have been genuinely losing sleep!

I told them in my first letter that I am eager to avoid any prosecution and pay any settlement fee they see fit to impose.

Any help or advice would be appreciated.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Hi WorriedSick

Yes it's very unfortunate on your part, frustrating, but Revenue Protection Officers usually have heard it all before.

As you are able to view on-line statements, why can't you print one off and send it (with other supporting evidence) by recorded delivery?

I'm no expert but I'm sceptical as to whether you will be granted an extension.

Valuable lesson learnt!

 

[Llanigraham]

Just because it is a Bank Holiday does not mean the Bank is not working, only that the branches aren't open. I'm sure if you email them now they will be able to process your application promptly.
If you have electronic banking you may even be able to print a copy of the statement.

 

[WorriedSick]

Will they accept a print off of my online statement?
I can definitely do that but just assumed they would need an original full statement.
I suppose I can send this and if they need an original they can surely let me know?
I actually already requested a print statement at the time but my oh so security conscious fiancé shredded it as we usually do with statements!

So do you think once I send this that would be the end of the issue? I know each case is different but as I said I am genuinely worried!!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The bank statement will usually only show the agent transaction (e.g. Northern, Virgin etc), amount and your origin station but it won't "prove" that you brought a ticket to Manchester Piccadilly.

At least you've been given the opportunity to explain yourself.

I assume (as you haven't written in your opening post) that you weren't offered a Penalty Fare at the ticket barrier?

To the more knowledgeable members on the group, could the OP have a defence if a PF wasn't offered/issued?

 

[WorriedSick]

The bank statement will usually only show the agent transaction (e.g. Northern, Virgin etc), amount and your origin station but it won't "prove" that you brought a ticket to Manchester Piccadilly.

At least you've been given the opportunity to explain yourself.

I assume (as you haven't written in your opening post) that you weren't offered a Penalty Fare at the ticket barrier?

To the more knowledgeable members on the group, could the OP have a defence if a PF wasn't offered/issued?

I wasn't offered a PF at all? Should I have been or would that not be applicable in my case?

 

[bb21]

Send them a copy of your online statement now if you cannot get hold of a paper copy in time. Explain in your letter when you expect the paper copy to be ready. Provided that it is within a reasonable time scale, I cannot see them starting any prosecution proceedings. Chances are that it will not be needed, but start requesting one just in case.

If you are worried that your statement does not show the time, you can ask your bank, in branch, for a copy of the transaction details. They should be happy to provide that.

I wasn't offered a PF at all? Should I have been or would that not be applicable in my case?

I assume when you say the letter came from National Rail, you meant Northern Rail?

If so, a Penalty Fare is not applicable as they don't operate such a scheme.

 

[WorriedSick]

Ah yes I do mean northern rail. Sorry about that.
I would have been quite happy to pay any penalty to stop all this worry believe me!

 

[Stigy]

I wasn't offered a PF at all? Should I have been or would that not be applicable in my case?

Unfortunately, even if such a scheme was in place, should you have been offered one based on the observations of the staff at the time? If you think outside the box, I'm sure you can see how it looks? You turn up at the barriers, present yesterday's ticket, then can't produce today's when prompted...Playing devil's advocate here, what's to say you didn't buy one and were 'trying your luck' to get away with using the out if date ticket? Even if you can produce proof of purchase, that merely proves you bought a ticket....or even just made payment to Northern. Whether this payment was for a ticket is harder to prove. Even if you can prove this, unfortunately you couldn't produce a ticket on the day, which is an offence in itself under Byelaw 18(2) (What's to say you did buy one, but 'lent it' to a friend?).

 

[island]

No offence has been committed under bylaw 18 (2), which requires a passenger to hand over a ticket when requested. The passenger did produce a ticket. The said bylaw section does not require that the ticket be valid.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

No offence has been committed under bylaw 18 (2), which requires a passenger to hand over a ticket when requested. The passenger did produce a ticket. The said bylaw section does not require that the ticket be valid.

Oh dear!
It does.

"ticket"

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),

If the test in Byelaw 18 (2) fails

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

then the test of Byelaw 18 (1) is triggered and also fails on the ticket's lack of validity :

(1) . . . 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.

unless the passenger has not yet travelled (or intending to travel).

I can't see that this requires any further clarification.

 

[Stigy]

No offence has been committed under bylaw 18 (2), which requires a passenger to hand over a ticket when requested. The passenger did produce a ticket. The said bylaw section does not require that the ticket be valid.

The Byelaw states that you must hand over your ticket for inspection and verification of validity. I'd be happy to prosecute under that Byelaw in such circumstances. Alternatively one could ignore the out of date ticket and still use this Byelaw because the OP is maintaining that they DID buy one, but they just can't produce it.

As with most laws, you have to interpret them to a certain extent.

Edit: I see Dave beat me to it whilst typing. Not sure 18(1) would work with the OP maintaining they bought one. I really don't see why the 18(2) would fail.

 

[island]

I am aware that byelaw 18 (1) requires a passenger to have with him a valid ticket. Byelaw 18 (2) requires a passenger to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity. I am sure I read of a case (involving FCC?) where a byelaw 18 (2) prosecution failed or was overturned on appeal because the passenger had handed over an Oyster card which had not been touched in.

My post was correct. Byelaw 18 (2) requires the passenger to hand over a ticket. If the draughtsman had meant to refer to a valid one, he would have included the word "valid" as he did in 18 (1). I used "section" to refer to 18 (2) and no more. Perhaps you thought I was referring to all of byelaw 18?

 

[richw]

The bank statement will usually only show the agent transaction (e.g. Northern, Virgin etc), amount and your origin station but it won't "prove" that you brought a ticket to Manchester Piccadilly.

?

The TOC should be able to line the transaction details,to a transaction on the TVM history. They should be able to pull all transactions made from the debit card on a specific TVM or even their entire network.

As someone who has previously managed various card pay ware systems, all of them have been able to display dates times and amounts of transactions made. This should then align with a transaction in the TVM which will show what ticket was purchased.

 

[island]

The Byelaw states that you must hand over your ticket for inspection and verification of validity. I'd be happy to prosecute under that Byelaw in such circumstances. Alternatively one could ignore the out of date ticket and still use this Byelaw because the OP is maintaining that they DID buy one, but they just can't produce it.

As with most laws, you have to interpret them to a certain extent.

Edit: I see Dave beat me to it whilst typing. Not sure 18(1) would work with the OP maintaining they bought one. I really don't see why the 18(2) would fail.

18 (1) would have a decent chance of success in this case as the byelaw requires the passenger to "have with him" a valid ticket. "Have with him" is a higher standard than "possess", "own", etc.

 

[maniacmartin]

Regarding the bank statement, when I had a similar problem before (not on the railways), I took the printout from online banking to my local branch, and they were able to check against their records that it was a genuine account of my transactions and stamp it with the branch stamp, and sign and date it on the spot, which added some credibility. You might want to see if your bank is also willing to do this.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I am sure I read of a case (involving FCC?) where a byelaw 18 (2) prosecution failed or was overturned on appeal because the passenger had handed over an Oyster card which had not been touched in.

Perhaps that will have been Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) which, on Appeal, was not defended; the incident followed from the Appellant having presented his Oyster card voluntarily and consequently had not been asked to present a ticket. Had the charge been S.18 (1) or S.17.1 then it was the opinion of the Court that it would most likely have succeeded.

Not sure 18(1) would work with the OP maintaining they bought one. I really don't see why the 18(2) would fail.

It's my use of language that has confused this - I said that the test in S.18 (2) would fail. i.e. the passenger would fail the test of producing a ticket on request for confirmation of its validity (the OP's ticket from the previous day was invalid), meaning that a prosecution of that Offence would be likely to succeed.

My post was correct. Byelaw 18 (2) requires the passenger to hand over a ticket. If the draughtsman had meant to refer to a valid one, he would have included the word "valid" as he did in 18 (1). I used "section" to refer to 18 (2) and no more. Perhaps you thought I was referring to all of byelaw 18?

No. You have a skewed approach to statutory interpretation. It is incorrect to read the 2 clauses as independant statements, the 2002 Byelaw had used the phrase you suggest. S.18 in those Byelaws attempted to link the phrasing of S.18 (1) and 18 (2) by referring in (2) to "this ticket" which was intended to refer back to the ticket already described in (1) as "a valid ticket entitling him to travel". Due to difficulties with the application of the tests in the two clauses in the correct sequence, and challenges based on the fact that validity had not been determined at the time of presentation, it became clear that the required effect would necessitate a redrafting to be more precise and to have (2) referring back to the presentation of "his ticket" for the purposes of "verification of validity", and only following which it becomes appropriate to consider the test in (1) which requires the determination of validity. This was done in the 2005 Byelaws. The two are closely bound to each other, and quite deliberately.
You are wrong to speculate that "If the draughtsman had meant to refer to a valid one, he would have included the word" and I suggest you look at the difficulties that flowed from that effect in the 2002 Railway Byelaws, which explains why your suggestion had been in the text and was then removed.

Your suggestion that I might have thought you were referring to all of Byelaw 18 is correct in so far as I am sure that we must read statutes as a body and not to discard elements from our reading of them. We must read all of the Section and the definitions as a whole.

As for "my post is correct", I leave it to you to speculate on why you would want to give the OP what I can only charitably describe as a personal interpretation or opinion in preference to that which is adopted in practice.

 

[cjmillsnun]

To be honest I think you probably have less to worry about than most.

You're prepared to provide proof of a transaction to the TOC. They *should* accept a copy of the bank statement. (I have made a PDF file of my bank statements before and submitted that as part of a credit application, so I see no reason why a printout would not be accepted, especially with a note to say that you have ordered a copy from the bank to back up the printout).

They'll probably not take you to court, but more than likely they will offer to settle out of court (bearing in mind you were unable to produce a valid ticket to the RPI), this will take the form of the cost of a ticket and an admin fee (be warned it's a hefty fee), but that would then be the end of the matter.

 

[WorriedSick]

I have printed off my online banking and have noticed that there are numerous payments around that date for train tickets.

I'm not sure which one is the one from the day as there is probably clearing time to consider. Do you think they will account for this or is this going to shoot me in the foot?

I hope this is the final letter they need to close the case and tell me what I have to do or pay! I feel like this long drawn out process has caused me much more stress and anxiety!

 

[bb21]

Did you do as I suggested in Post 7 and ask your bank for a copy of the transaction details?

 

[WorriedSick]

I haven't because i spoke to one of the prosecutions advisors who said it may not be necessary, she advised to send in the online copy and request a full copy just in case but that the online copy may well be sufficient.

I have written the letter to go with these online print outs explaining what i have been advised and also once again apologising for the incident.

I am trying my very best to comply with any request they give me and am hoping this issue will soon have come to an end. Has anybody been in this situation before and have any gauge on the time it usually takes to be resolved?

I have admitted i am in the wrong by not holding my ticket for inspection and therefore expect to be made to pay some sort of fee of course, but my nerves are genuinely in tatters and would just love the issue to be resolved as soon as possible.

 

[Yew]

I haven't because i spoke to one of the prosecutions advisors who said it may not be necessary, she advised to send in the online copy and request a full copy just in case but that the online copy may well be sufficient.

I have written the letter to go with these online print outs explaining what i have been advised and also once again apologising for the incident.

I am trying my very best to comply with any request they give me and am hoping this issue will soon have come to an end. Has anybody been in this situation before and have any gauge on the time it usually takes to be resolved?

I have admitted i am in the wrong by not holding my ticket for inspection and therefore expect to be made to pay some sort of fee of course, but my nerves are genuinely in tatters and would just love the issue to be resolved as soon as possible.

I would suggest letting someone with legal experience proof read your letter, as if it is worded in a certain way, then it could be seen as an admission of guilt.

 

[WorriedSick]

So do you suggest perhaps not sending an in depth letter, merely stating i have enclosed online statements and full statement has been requested from the bank within 10 days? And not really mention anything else?

The letter i received from NR does just say 'in order to aid in our investigation could you send in proof of purchase within 14 days'

I really don't want to cause myself any more trouble than necessary but cannot really afford a solicitor at this point to help write a letter.

 

[najaB]

So do you suggest perhaps not sending an in depth letter, merely stating i have enclosed online statements and full statement has been requested from the bank within 10 days? And not really mention anything else?

The letter i received from NR does just say 'in order to aid in our investigation could you send in proof of purchase within 14 days'

I really don't want to cause myself any more trouble than necessary but cannot really afford a solicitor at this point to help write a letter.

I was advised once that if you find yourself in a 'sticky' situation, not to volunteer more information than you've been asked for. But, at the same time, to not be seen as being obstructive or evasive. The less you say, the less likely that they will find contradictions and the more openly and politely you say it, the more likely you are to be believed.

So I would say something along the lines of "I've enclosed copies of my bank statements as proof of purchase and requested official copies which I should receive in the next ten days. I hope this information is complete and sufficient to help you resolve this issue in a timely manner. Please contact me if you require any more information."

 

[WorriedSick]

Hi guys

Received a reply today issuing a fixed penalty of £80 which I was relieved to pay however I find it disappointing that this was deemed necessary after giving them my bank statement as proof of purchase but I suppose as I admitted to them it was my own carelessness in leaving the ticket at the machine that's to blame!

At least it is now resolved and a valuable lesson learnt!

Thanks for all your brilliant advice.

I genuinely appreciate it!

 

[bb21]

Thanks for letting us know.

I am sure you will be more careful in the future.

 

[RPI]

I thought that Northern only issued an £80 fixed penalty on the second occasion after a warning? I know they don't have to give any warning and can, if they wish, go straight to prosecution.

 

[bb21]

I thought that Northern only issued an £80 fixed penalty on the second occasion after a warning? I know they don't have to give any warning and can, if they wish, go straight to prosecution.

Supposedly, but evidence so far suggests otherwise.