GWR Prosections - Help Please

[miami]

If you lose your tickets, you have not committed a recordable criminal offence under the Regulation of Railways Act, but if you are asked to present your ticket, you have committed an offence under the Railway Byelaws, albeit a non-recordable offence, for which you can be prosecuted.

If you lose your ticket before boarding the train, you have committed a byelaw offence, regardless if anyone asks to see it.

In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, 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.

Quite how you would be found guilty unless your concious causes you to "fess up" is anyone's guess, but technically I would interpret this that you would have committed an offence, just like if you do 75mph on the motorway and noone catches you, you've committed an offence.

If you lose the ticket *on the train* though, you haven't, as you'll have already entered the train.

There used to be bins on exits of platforms and/or stations for used tickets. I'm not very observant, do they still exist?

 

[najaB]

If you lose the ticket *on the train* though, you haven't, as you'll have already entered the train.

You quoted 18.1 and yes, you are correct. However, have a look at 18.2 and you'll see that you can still be found in breach of the Byelaws.

 

[miami]

So what happens at a station like Kirkham, bin at bottom of stairs on platform quite often containing used tickets but a lurking RPI at the station entrance who demands your ticket when you have disposed of it in their provided bin before exiting the station where there is no bin outside? Have you committed an offence?

Ahh yes, great minds and/or coincidences.

One could interpret the byelaw

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

in a couple of ways other than the normal way (which I would guess means keep your ticket until you either leave the station, or pass an area where they ask you to dispose of your ticket.

1) If you're sat in the pub on a friday night having travelled by train 2 weeks earlier and still have your ticket on you, you should hand it over for inspection and verification of validity

2) If you don't have a ticket you do not need to hand over the ticket. If you had the ticket when you boarded the train, you haven't committed an offence under section 1. If you haven't had a ticket when asked to do present it, you haven't committed an offence under section 2.

Additionally the byelaw implies that an authorised person would be able to validate your ticket. If they can't do that correctly would that be an argument they aren't an authorised person?

I believe that byelaws don't require the TOC to prove you boarded the train without a ticket (which would be impossible), but only fall under the balance of probabilities that you did. In my opinion if they ask you for a ticket after you've got off the train and passed a "dispose of tickets here" bin the balance should be in your favour. If it's more like a metrolink check where they are on the platform and in your face straight away then it would be in the TOCs favour. If you could prove to the court you had paid for a train ticket (via a credit card receipt perhaps) then I'd hope they would find in your case.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=86352 seems an appropriate thread
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You quoted 18.1 and yes, you are correct. However, have a look at 18.2 and you'll see that you can still be found in breach of the Byelaws.

You can, but my scenario was when you are not checked - you still commit an offence if you board the train without a ticket (even if you've bought one, but disposed of it before the journey), you haven't if you dispose of it on the train.

 

[najaB]

1) If you're sat in the pub on a friday night having travelled by train 2 weeks earlier and still have your ticket on you, you should hand it over for inspection and verification of validity

Technically, yes. But the concept of 'reasonableness' would come into play and any attempt to prosecute would be thrown out of court and the prosecutor would be the one answering questions.

2) If you don't have a ticket you do not need to hand over the ticket. If you had the ticket when you boarded the train, you haven't committed an offence under section 1. If you haven't had a ticket when asked to do present it, you haven't committed an offence under section 2.

No. The Byelaw requires you to present a ticket on request. If you can't present one then you have breached it (with the exceptions noted in 18.3).

Additionally the byelaw implies that an authorised person would be able to validate your ticket. If they can't do that correctly would that be an argument they aren't an authorised person?

One would assume they have eyes. That's all they need to be able to attempt to validate your ticket. There's no requirement for them to do it correctly.

Edit: I suppose it gets more tricky for electronic tokens (e.g. smartcards and CPC).

 

[exile]

If you lose your tickets, you have not committed a recordable criminal offence under the Regulation of Railways Act, but if you are asked to present your ticket, you have committed an offence under the Railway Byelaws, albeit a non-recordable offence, for which you can be prosecuted.

See our legal section for more information.

If, like me, you do not like the Railway Byelaws, please do write to your MP to express your concern.

I didn't mean that the OP hadn't breached the bylaw - but "crime" and "criminal" are harsh words for something that was not intended.

Strict liability applies to many areas of law (speeding for example) but usually refer to something that requires a deliberate action or omission, whether with criminal intent or not - and 18.1 "boarding a train without a ticket" would be such an action, which doesn't need to be demonstrated to be with the intent to avoid payment to fall foul of it. But the bylaws are deliberately drafted to allow the railway to take action without showing a crime has been committed.

 

[najaB]

I didn't mean that the OP hadn't breached the bylaw - but "crime" and "criminal" are harsh words for something that was not intended.

They might be harsh words but that doesn't change the fact that breaches of the Byelaws are dealt with through the criminal system.

Could I ask that discussion of the merits of the legislation governing ticketing matters be taken to a separate thread? I'm more than happy to have this post and the related ones moved.

 

[exile]

They might be harsh words but that doesn't change the fact that breaches of the Byelaws are dealt with through the criminal system.

Could I ask that discussion of the merits of the legislation governing ticketing matters be taken to a separate thread? I'm more than happy to have this post and the related ones moved.

Same here, happy for a separate thread to be started - I raised this issue because a few people were having a go at the OP, accusing him of wishing to be "let off".

In the meantime -

"The Railway Byelaws may be pursued in a similar manner, though do have 3 significant differences from the other Acts we’ve mentioned:
a) they create Offences which do not result in a Criminal record (and would not normally appear from a CRB check of the PNC if successfully prosecuted);"

 

[Elecman]

If you lose your ticket before boarding the train, you have committed a byelaw offence, regardless if anyone asks to see it.




Quite how you would be found guilty unless your concious causes you to "fess up" is anyone's guess, but technically I would interpret this that you would have committed an offence, just like if you do 75mph on the motorway and noone catches you, you've committed an offence.

If you lose the ticket *on the train* though, you haven't, as you'll have already entered the train.

There used to be bins on exits of platforms and/or stations for used tickets. I'm not very observant, do they still exist?

Yes Kirkham certainly has a bin on the platform by the stairs to the exit

 

[exile]

In the good old days a bloke would collect your tickets as you left the station.

 

[najaB]

In the meantime -

"The Railway Byelaws may be pursued in a similar manner, though do have 3 significant differences from the other Acts we’ve mentioned:
a) they create Offences which do not result in a Criminal record (and would not normally appear from a CRB check of the PNC if successfully prosecuted);"

This is true, but I can't see the point you're making.

 

[34D]

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

This op did hand over their ticket for inspection on the train. 18(2) is therefore satisfied?

Oh, you mean it actually should read "when asked to do so by one or more authorised persons"?

 

[exile]

This is true, but I can't see the point you're making.

I've raised a new thread for this elsewhere - but I don't think we should continue to discuss this here. I have an answer to this point on the new thread.

 

[island]

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

This op did hand over their ticket for inspection on the train. 18(2) is therefore satisfied?

Oh, you mean it actually should read "when asked to do so by one or more authorised persons"?

I think the sentence does not confine itself to the ticket being asked for once and once only.

 

[exile]

I think the sentence does not confine itself to the ticket being asked for once and once only.

I have seen, in other threads, cases where on train staff confiscate a ticket when there is a dispute over validity. Even if a receipt is given this automatically puts the passenger in breach of 18.2

 

[Haywain]

I have seen, in other threads, cases where on train staff confiscate a ticket when there is a dispute over validity. Even if a receipt is given this automatically puts the passenger in breach of 18.2

Only if you choose not to define that receipt as a ticket or authority to travel.

 

[najaB]

Even if a receipt is given this automatically puts the passenger in breach of 18.2

No it doesn't as the receipt acts as the travel authority.

 

[Llanigraham]

I have seen, in other threads, cases where on train staff confiscate a ticket when there is a dispute over validity. Even if a receipt is given this automatically puts the passenger in breach of 18.2

Wrong.
The receipt replaces the ticket.

 

[miami]

Wrong.
The receipt replaces the ticket.

And when you aren't given a receipt?

 

[najaB]

And when you aren't given a receipt?

That should only happen if you are already at your destination. If the passenger is stopped twice on the same journey and doesn't receive a receipt, is unlikely in the extreme that the passenger would be prosecuted/penalised twice.

 

[6Gman]

In the good old days a bloke would collect your tickets as you left the station.

At Crewe they used to have two blokes.

Now they've put in barriers the largest number of staff I've seen in attendance is ... seven!

Huh?

 

[gray1404]

Pay the £20 please, this will keep it out of court. If it goes to court you will almost certainly be found guilty. You were in the wrong as you failed to show a valid ticket on request. GWR are within their rights here on this one.

However, you are within your rights to make a complaint to the train company as you are unhappy (e.g after you've paid the £20). If you remain unhappy with their reply you can ask for it to be reviewed by a Manager. Who knows you might get a £20 voucher as hush money/goodwill gesture. If you remain unhappy with the way they deal with your complaint then you can take the matter to Transport Focus. These are your rights as a customer.

 

[455driver]

Why would he get 'hush' money?
He was in the wrong because he was unable to show a valid ticket when asked!

As for goodwill, what did GWR do wrong to feel the need to offer 'goodwill'?

I feel you are merely trying to make the OP feel they have been harshly treated when in actual fat they havent.

 

[Master29]

That attitude to buying tickets is how a lot of people end up at this forum asking for help with prosecution letters.

Always buy a ticket from where you get on to where you get off and retain it till you leave the station you finish your journey at and you won't get any more problems

He was asking for help not criticism. He said he usually pays and has the receipts to prove it. If you had read his letter he also said he was unable to purchase at his first station as there are no ticket buying facilities. He merely stated he could have, not would have. I think the attitude is your s not his.

I had a similar situation with my daughter who was in many ways at fault and ended up paying a £100 fine and the courts in her case were lenient. Paying £20 is good advice as it will only get worse, that is of course unless you find your ticket which is unlikely.

Best to take the advice of good members here who are willing to see both sides but sadly one or two members here see this part of the forum as a kangaroo court.

 

[tony6499]

He was asking for help not criticism. He said he usually pays and has the receipts to prove it. If you had read his letter he also said he was unable to purchase at his first station as there are no ticket buying facilities. He merely stated he could have, not would have. I think the attitude is your s not his.

I had a similar situation with my daughter who was in many ways at fault and ended up paying a £100 fine and the courts in her case were lenient. Paying £20 is good advice as it will only get worse, that is of course unless you find your ticket which is unlikely.

Best to take the advice of good members here who are willing to see both sides but sadly one or two members here see this part of the forum as a kangaroo court.

Say no more.

I gave advice not criticism, if you don't buy the correct ticket and don't retain it till you leave railway property you will lay yourself open to problems.

 

[miami]

He was asking for help not criticism. He said he usually pays and has the receipts to prove it. If you had read his letter he also said he was unable to purchase at his first station as there are no ticket buying facilities. He merely stated he could have, not would have. I think the attitude is your s not his.

I had a similar situation with my daughter who was in many ways at fault and ended up paying a £100 fine and the courts in her case were lenient. Paying £20 is good advice as it will only get worse, that is of course unless you find your ticket which is unlikely.

Even if he finds the ticket he's technically guilty of breaching the byelaws anyway, as he didn't present the ticket at the time.

Pay up, then make a complaint about how you were handled (the "shocking attitude of the staff"). Hopefully the staff will be reminded of their duties as customer facing people.

 

[Master29]

Say no more.

I gave advice not criticism, if you don't buy the correct ticket and don't retain it till you leave railway property you will lay yourself open to problems.

The tone of the reply was critical but OK you did make a good point at the end.

Paulweaver. You`re right of course. Standing corrected.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Wrong.
The receipt replaces the ticket.

Sorry, wrong again.

This has been tested many times - the only acceptable evidence of entitlement to make, or have made the journey by train is the rail ticket showing the actual journey, class of travel and fare paid details.

It isn't perfect, but this is to prevent fraudulent travel by using a receipt for the fare to travel yourself and handing the ticket to another person.

An inspector might sometimes show discretion if satisfied that nothing untoward is evident and may accept a traveller's explanation if a receipt is produced, but is never obliged to do so.

Both the Byelaw and RoRA are clear in saying 'a ticket' and for the purposes of the legislation, a receipt for a payment is not a ticket.

A ticket will show the details of the journey ie; from and to, the fare paid, the class of accommodation to be used and the date of travel (or dates of validity) as well as any restrictions upon its use. A receipt does not show those details.

 

[najaB]

Both the Byelaw and RoRA are clear in saying 'a ticket' and for the purposes of the legislation, a receipt for a payment is not a ticket.

I don't think he meant the purchase receipt, but rather the receipt given by a RPI who confiscates the original ticket.

 

[sheff1]

Sorry, wrong again.

This has been tested many times - the only acceptable evidence of entitlement to make, or have made the journey by train is the rail ticket showing the actual journey, class of travel and fare paid details.

......

Both the Byelaw and RoRA are clear in saying 'a ticket' and for the purposes of the legislation, a receipt for a payment is not a ticket.

This stinks.

If, as the quoted post said, someone's ticket is withdrawn for investigation as a result of a validity dispute then any reasonable person would believe that the receipt given by the RPI would allow them to continue their journey to the destination which was stated on the withdrawn ticket.

From what you say, though, anyone travelling with such a receipt is committing a byelaw offence and is liable to charged with such en route, or at their destination. If the original ticket, once investigated, turns out to be valid after all then the passenger will have been guilty of travelling without a valid ticket only because the valid ticket they had been using correctly was withdrawn by the RPI .

 

[DaleCooper]

Don't let a misunderstanding spiral out of control, the receipt in question was for a confiscated ticket not a purchased ticket and so of course would be valid.