Fine/Prosecution Letter SWT

[jmenzies31]

I travel from my station to Waterloo every day, I have done for the last 6 years and I have had a season ticket for the last 6 years.

A month or so ago, I left home as usual, boarded the train at my local station as usual (barriers were open) and proceeded to Waterloo. At Waterloo, I went through an open barrier as I often do in the mornings and was asked to show my ticket.

I couldn't find my season ticket, but was certain I had it on me. The revenue officer took me onto a platform and asked me for my details, I said the ticket it in my bag somewhere but he wasn't interested in giving me time to look and frankly he was being loud and rude and it was embarrassing and I just wanted to go, so when he said, if you have a ticket then there is no issue, just give me your details and you can be on your way.

I got to work about 15 minutes after getting stopped, found my season ticket in my bag, sent a photo of it (with a backing sheet showing the date and time) to SWT to prove I was in possession of a valid ticket and made a complaint that the revenue officer was rude and didn't give me sufficient time to produce my ticket.

I received a letter saying I had to pay just under £100 or I would be prosecuted. Frankly I am outraged that they could possibly have grounds to prosecute someone who had paid the correct fare, who had sent evidence of this and who was in possession of a valid ticket.

I called them up to say I had a valid season ticket and they said not producing it is sufficient for a prosecution and that they "have to treat all customers the same" - whatever that means.

Any advice on whether I should 1) pay the fine then appeal, 2) not pay the fine and defend any attempt to prosecute or 3) don't have a leg to stand on so should just pay the outrageous fine and walk away.

 

[Clip]

Whether you have paid for a ticket or not the offence is 'Failure to produce a valid ticket..'

How does SWT know that you didnt give it to someone else to use that morning to get a free ride as you normally walk through an open gate?

 

[mikeg]

Whilst I can appreciate it seems outrageous (and in many ways it is), I advise paying the settlement and appealing, if they have a process of doing that, though I can't see what there is to appeal.

Some confusion over terminology here: What you have received is not a fine, only a court can issue one a fine, it is an offer for an out of court settlement.
There are also penalty fares, which would have been much more appropriate to your situation, levied at either £20 or twice the anytime single (whichever is greater). These are also not fines, but would have to be issued 'there and then' with a possibility of appeal so you haven't received one of these either. You do however have no right to be issued a penalty fare, it is issued at the discretion of the revenue protection inspector. They may choose to report for prosecution if they so wish.

I suggest something halfway between option 1 and 3. Pay the settlement fee and put in a complaint separately (which you have already done I see).

Unfortunately railway byelaws are rather harsh here: It is an offence to fail to present a ticket for inspection, unless there was no opportunity to purchase. It is also an offence to travel without a valid ticket, where there was an opportunity to purchase (excluding situations where an authorised person has given permission). This is a strict liability matter and the fact you have paid has unfortunately no bearing. A byelaw prosecution would therefore succeed. Do you know which piece of legislation they are planning of using?

 

[6Gman]

I travel from my station to Waterloo every day, I have done for the last 6 years and I have had a season ticket for the last 6 years.

A month or so ago, I left home as usual, boarded the train at my local station as usual (barriers were open) and proceeded to Waterloo. At Waterloo, I went through an open barrier as I often do in the mornings and was asked to show my ticket.

I couldn't find my season ticket, but was certain I had it on me. The revenue officer took me onto a platform and asked me for my details, I said the ticket it in my bag somewhere but he wasn't interested in giving me time to look and frankly he was being loud and rude and it was embarrassing and I just wanted to go, so when he said, if you have a ticket then there is no issue, just give me your details and you can be on your way.
I got to work about 15 minutes after getting stopped, found my season ticket in my bag, sent a photo of it (with a backing sheet showing the date and time) to SWT to prove I was in possession of a valid ticket and made a complaint that the revenue officer was rude and didn't give me sufficient time to produce my ticket.

I received a letter saying I had to pay just under £100 or I would be prosecuted. Frankly I am outraged that they could possibly have grounds to prosecute someone who had paid the correct fare, who had sent evidence of this and who was in possession of a valid ticket.

I called them up to say I had a valid season ticket and they said not producing it is sufficient for a prosecution and that they "have to treat all customers the same" - whatever that means.

Any advice on whether I should 1) pay the fine then appeal, 2) not pay the fine and defend any attempt to prosecute or 3) don't have a leg to stand on so should just pay the outrageous fine and walk away.

Surely this is the key point - you were badly misled. Sadly, very difficult to prove.

 

[bb21]

Something about this prosecution doesn't sit easy with me.

Prosecution under the Byelaws in this case would be ridiculous imo.

Did you retain proof of post last time you sent a copy of your season ticket in? If not, send it in again and obtain proof.

It is also unclear what the intended prosecution would be for at this stage.

As for the staff complaint, that is the least of your worries and I suggest that you let it drop.

 

[rdwarr]

Whether you have paid for a ticket or not the offence is 'Failure to produce a valid ticket..'

How does SWT know that you didnt give it to someone else to use that morning to get a free ride as you normally walk through an open gate?

If the OP had been presented with a reasonable opportunity to find the ticket then there wouldn't have been an issue. If staff are worried about people going through open barriers then they should close them. Had this happened then the OP would have looked for their ticket and, yet again, no issue.

Treating all passengers as potential criminals is worse than those who brand all RPIs as arrogant jobsworths.

From the OP - " he wasn't interested in giving me time to look". Don't overlook that point.

 

[najaB]

Something about this prosecution doesn't sit easy with me.

Prosecution under the Byelaws in this case would be ridiculous imo.

If the scenario played out as described by the OP, then I agree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the OP had been presented with a reasonable opportunity to find the ticket then there wouldn't have been an issue.

Here's the problem - we don't know how long the OP searched for the ticket before the RPI ran out of patience. While it may have seemed a very short time to the OP, it may have seemed longer to a disinterested observer.

 

[Clip]

If the scenario played out as described by the OP, then I agree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here's the problem - we don't know how long the OP searched for the ticket before the RPI ran out of patience. While it may have seemed a very short time to the OP, it may have seemed longer to a disinterested observer.

Very true and over the passage of time the story the OP has outlined may have been changed slightly to suit their desire for a different outcome due to being outraged at what has gone on.

I know of plenty of cases that have passed these pages over the years where the OP is vastly different to the RPIs report and indeed my own witnessing of one or two cases too.

Not to say that the OP is lying in this instance but its worth noting the above from the one sided nature of things we have been told.

 

[rdwarr]

Here's the problem - we don't know how long the OP searched for the ticket before the RPI ran out of patience. While it may have seemed a very short time to the OP, it may have seemed longer to a disinterested observer.

I agree with you there. However the boredom threshold of an RPI shouldn't be a deciding factor in submitting a case for prosecution - it's a massive deal to the average passenger. In an ideal world a customer should be allowed to look for their ticket until they either find it or declare it lost.

 

[najaB]

In an ideal world a customer should be allowed to look for their ticket until they either find it or declare it lost.

In an ideal world, I agree. But there are some passengers who, in full knowledge of the fact they don't and never had a ticket, will proceed to do a full-blown ticket dance including checking each pocket three or four times. Meanwhile there are other passengers waiting, etc.

 

[gray1404]

The OP should have been given a reasonable amount of time to find their ticket.

 

[najaB]

The OP should have been given a reasonable amount of time to find their ticket.

We don't know that they weren't.

 

[Quakkerillo]

The ticket dance is a very well-known act of actual fare dodgers. I can't really blame an RPI to just give up and give the person a PF or whatever would be suitable, considering it being London Waterloo and presumably even (semi)rush hour. Then the RPI could just get on with the work for the next person.

However, they should really deal with the afterwards here. The SWT website states:

- If you do not have your Season Ticket with you when you travel you must buy a ticket for your journey. You will be able to get a refund on the fare paid on the first two occasions this happens in any 12 month period. On the second such occasion an administration charge will be made (see below). No more than two of these types of refund will be made in any 12 month period. You will need to hand in the tickets you have bought. You should make refund claims of this type within 28 days of travel.

So claiming you forgot it at home would be less punished as having it on you but just not being able to find it in time, which is absurd. (Albeit that in Brussels on the local transport, regulations are the same. Forgot card = €10 fine. Card on you, but forgot to beep in / can't find it when asked = €100 fine)

But I'd still take it up by explaining everything in a letter to the relevant address with all information and detail.

 

[antharro]

I would expect Waterloo to have decent CCTV - any chance this incident would have been recorded? That would resolve the question of how long the RPI allowed the OP to look for his ticket.

 

[najaB]

I would expect Waterloo to have decent CCTV - any chance this incident would have been recorded?

It was "a month or so ago" so almost zero chance that the CCTV (if any) is still available.

 

[KTHV]

I noted the SRA Policy on PFs has a bit about this:

Instructions given to authorised collectors

4.28 Operators sending us a scheme for approval must enclose a copy of the written instructions and information which will be given to each authorised collector, containing guidance and rules about their appearance, behaviour and use of discretion (rule 3 of the Penalty Fares Rules). The instructions must give authorised collectors the information they need about penalty fares trains and stations, ticket facilities and ticket office opening hours.

4.29 When a penalty fare cannot be charged. The instructions must make clear to authorised collectors when they can charge a penalty fare and when they can’t. In particular, the instructions must remind authorised collectors of situations where passengers are not liable to a penalty fare under the Penalty Fares Rules, for example in circumstances where the National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare. The instructions must cover the following instances.

• Season-ticket left at home.
We expect allowances to be made for season-ticket holders who, for one reason or another, fail to carry their season-ticket or photocard.

The system used by most operators is that a penalty fare notice will be issued, but no payment will be taken. On two occasions for each person in any 12-month period, the penalty fare will be cancelled when the passenger appeals.

Some operators have procedures for cancelling penalty fares notices without having to go through the appeals process and we want to encourage this. The instructions given to authorised collectors must explain what the authorised collector and the season-ticket holder must do in this situation.

 

[Clip]

• Season-ticket left at home.
We expect allowances to be made for season-ticket holders who, for one reason or another, fail to carry their season-ticket or photocard.

.

I quite agree and that the OP shouldve said this when they were at the gate btu they found it afterwards and they should rescind it but of course the suspicion of passing it to someone else will always be there in cases like this.

 

[jmenzies31]

I noted the SRA Policy on PFs has a bit about this:

Instructions given to authorised collectors

4.28 Operators sending us a scheme for approval must enclose a copy of the written instructions and information which will be given to each authorised collector, containing guidance and rules about their appearance, behaviour and use of discretion (rule 3 of the Penalty Fares Rules). The instructions must give authorised collectors the information they need about penalty fares trains and stations, ticket facilities and ticket office opening hours.

4.29 When a penalty fare cannot be charged. The instructions must make clear to authorised collectors when they can charge a penalty fare and when they can’t. In particular, the instructions must remind authorised collectors of situations where passengers are not liable to a penalty fare under the Penalty Fares Rules, for example in circumstances where the National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare. The instructions must cover the following instances.

• Season-ticket left at home.
We expect allowances to be made for season-ticket holders who, for one reason or another, fail to carry their season-ticket or photocard.

The system used by most operators is that a penalty fare notice will be issued, but no payment will be taken. On two occasions for each person in any 12-month period, the penalty fare will be cancelled when the passenger appeals.

Some operators have procedures for cancelling penalty fares notices without having to go through the appeals process and we want to encourage this. The instructions given to authorised collectors must explain what the authorised collector and the season-ticket holder must do in this situation.

Thanks this is helpful. I responded yesterday to the letter saying I intend to defend rather than settle.

Re some of the responses above

- I don't see the point in exaggerating or lying on a forum where no-one knows me, how could anyone give me good advice if I give the wrong facts.

- its a generic letter referring to the bylaws and regulations, but they wouldn't be able to bring a section 5 prosecution so would have to go for the bylaws, more specifically the failure to present a ticket for inspection (I think they would fail to discharge the standard of proof for failing to carry a valid ticket - particularly given the fact I e-mailed in proof within 15 minutes of arriving at Waterloo that I had found my season ticket).

- I think I would have a good argument for claiming I wasn't given a reasonable opportunity to present my ticket for inspection or that the revenue officer failed to correctly discharge his duties - and therefore couldn't have failed to present a ticket for inspection. The two arguments I have are 1) what is a failure to present a ticket (for example: is being told not to look, there is no issue they can take your details and SWT can check whether you have a ticket a failure to present vs spending 30 minutes looking for a ticket in a bag wasting everyone's time - there is a line somewhere and therefore scope to make an argument) and 2) what is an "inspection" - presumably for an inspection the train company will have to discharge a duty to inspect, which will have to carry some sort of standard (presumably very low), but will that standard have been met in my circumstances given what I was told - maybe not - but in either case it is certainly not your clear cut case scenario.

- apparently if you realize you don't have your season ticket after your journey has commenced, you can approach a guard and get an authorization to travel and a fare or penalty fare and you submit your penalty fare with a copy of your season ticket and the authorization to travel and it will get waived. Again seems ridiculous that you can do this but not realizing after this can lead to a prosecution.

- I could have passed it onto someone else, but they could have just bought a ticket and I just claim it back under one of my free "left my season ticket at home" schemes. Unless the suspicious is I do this every day, in which case it would seem unlikely this is my first "offence" in 6 continuous years holding a gold card.

Once they receive my letter they apparently will respond promptly, I will still have until 21 days from the receipt of the letter to accept the out of court settlement, so I have nothing to lose from the "appeal".

I can't afford to have anything show up on an enhanced CRB check and so if they don't rescind it, I will accept the out of court settlement and pay the amount within the 21 days. I feel if I end up doing that, that I should pursue SWT for the amount - not disputing the settlement but the fact that false representations from the revenue office caused me to have to pay the fine (with a lower balance of probabilities threshold to succeed rather than fighting it in the magistrates) - if I do this I will ultimately end up racking up more irrecoverable costs than the original fine, but the whole thing has angered me so much, especially that revenue officer.

 

[furlong]

And there might be some more technical arguments to be made regarding the validity of the byelaw in cases like this - see for example some of the debate on this thread (as well as the long-standing question as to whether it can be used when a Penalty Fare was first issued).

 

[Paul Kelly]

- its a generic letter referring to the bylaws and regulations, but they wouldn't be able to bring a section 5 prosecution so would have to go for the bylaws, more specifically the failure to present a ticket for inspection (I think they would fail to discharge the standard of proof for failing to carry a valid ticket - particularly given the fact I e-mailed in proof within 15 minutes of arriving at Waterloo that I had found my season ticket).

- I think I would have a good argument for claiming I wasn't given a reasonable opportunity to present my ticket for inspection or that the revenue officer failed to correctly discharge his duties - and therefore couldn't have failed to present a ticket for inspection. The two arguments I have are 1) what is a failure to present a ticket (for example: is being told not to look, there is no issue they can take your details and SWT can check whether you have a ticket a failure to present vs spending 30 minutes looking for a ticket in a bag wasting everyone's time - there is a line somewhere and therefore scope to make an argument) and 2) what is an "inspection" - presumably for an inspection the train company will have to discharge a duty to inspect, which will have to carry some sort of standard (presumably very low), but will that standard have been met in my circumstances given what I was told - maybe not - but in either case it is certainly not your clear cut case scenario.

I have nothing to add except to say that it's rare to see a new poster in this section of the forum who has such a good grasp of the legal aspects as you do, particularly in respect to the bits I've highlighted above, and I wish you good luck!

 

[najaB]

I don't see the point in exaggerating or lying on a forum where no-one knows me, how could anyone give me good advice if I give the wrong facts.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of lying or deliberately exaggerating, but from personal experience the passage of time is very hard to estimate from memory, especially when you were involved in other activities.

And you correctly identify that there is a balancing point as to how long is long enough vs too long.

 

[jmenzies31]

I have nothing to add except to say that it's rare to see a new poster in this section of the forum who has such a good grasp of the legal aspects as you do, particularly in respect to the bits I've highlighted above, and I wish you good luck!

Thanks. For my sins I am actually a lawyer (leveraged finance so this is not my area) but the background helped me read the stuff on this forum and learn from you guys. Actually I find it all quite fascinating and will probably stick about and participate once my stuff is out the way - I am very shocked that they have so much power (which clearly enables them to go beyond what the regulations were intended for). I will update the forum on my progress.

 

[Clip]

I didnt mean to accuse you of lying and sorry if it came across that way but I look at things as I see them and we really do only hear things from one side.

They dont really go beyond(in most cases) from what the regulations are intended for but they do rely on experience and reports that the RPI delivers them and these are in the main trained people with years of experience of fare dodging and peoples attitudes as well as actions when speaking to them and most Ive met from SWT are very good at what they do

I do hope you can get this annulled though as that would be the correct outcome.

 

[furlong]

Additionally, you might have questions as to whether the £100 sought is a fair and accurate assessment of the direct costs incurred in your case. See for example this judgement

11. ... In the second paragraph they observed that the request for £30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Pounds) in return for agreement not to commence a private prosecution was tantamount to blackmail. It might not be blackmail, but it certainly would have rendered the agreement unenforceable on public policy grounds.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(which clearly enables them to go beyond what the regulations were intended for).

From memory, there's already been one (unsuccessful) judicial review challenging the validity of the byelaws as a whole. However, I still have concerns both about the validity of the penalties introduced post-privatisation for breaches of byelaw 18, and companies' reliance on these to support seemingly arbitrary "out of court settlement" demands that bypass Parliament's Penalty Fares schemes and deny the important protections for "honest passengers" specified by Parliament through the SRA (and now the DfT).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am very shocked that they have so much power

The power is always justified by the cost of fare evasion to the industry, but with that power comes responsibility. My current personal view is that the DfT upset the delicate balance by approving the current form of byelaw 18, encouraging these private companies to prosecute honest passengers successfully even in cases where a Penalty Fare (the out-of-court disposal mechanism provided by Parliament) would not have been valid. If the companies continue along their current path, I wouldn't be surprised if, as with TV licensing, people start agitating for the complete decriminalisation of fare evasion.

 

[jacksonbang]

I have never fare evaded and done the ticket dance. I have had a ticket and done the ticket dance, whether at platforms or on train, many many times in the 30-odd years I have travelled on trains as an adult, a few times for an RPI.
I would guess of all the ticket dances done on the railways the vast majority are done by customers with tickets.

Can an RPI actually call time on your ticket search and start whatever action is necessary? Is that a standard practice? What is the issue with just allowing you to stand aside while they get on with their job until you find the ticket or admit defeat?

Or maybe, as noted above, just keep the gates closed.

 

[bb21]

Can an RPI actually call time on your ticket search and start whatever action is necessary?

Yes they can, once a reasonable period of time has elapsed.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Yes they can, once a reasonable period of time has elapsed.

Well, you know what the next question is: what is "reasonable" and who decides that?

 

[Clip]

Well, you know what the next question is: what is "reasonable" and who decides that?

Well if you still havent found your ticket after 5 minutes then there is something wrong with you or you dont have it on your person.

And Im being generous at 5 minutes - especially as just about everyone who commutes that I have witnessed over the years both working and travelling within London, have their ticket ready way before they get to the gates so that they can get out and where they want to be so to have it in the bottom of a bag is a bit perplexing to be honest but I guess we're all different eh?

 

[Llanigraham]

Well, you know what the next question is: what is "reasonable" and who decides that?

The man on the Croydon omnibus is the common answer.

 

[tony_mac]

Many laws hinge on what is reasonable, and ultimately, a judge or jury will decide based on the facts of the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus