Help! Court Date imminent

[ainsworth74]

That doesn't appear to be in the photograph, so not relevant at this stage. And note it states clearly an offence is alleged to have occured "at Ramsgate" - not at some later time during an encounter with the inspector.

Hmm yes I see what you mean now. A not impossible argument to run but certainly one for a solicitor I'd agree!

 

[185]

Obvious question here, whilst those with dyspraxia are equally, or (as I've found) more intelligent than non-dyspraxics, would their condition, having uncontrolled limb movements be considered more likely to drop a ticket?

Not wishing to divert focus from a solution but should this be (dilligently) considered by the TOC before progressing to the mags?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Obvious question here, whilst those with dyspraxia are equally, or (as I've found) more intelligent than non-dyspraxics, would their condition, having uncontrolled limb movements be considered more likely to drop a ticket?

In a word - no...

Dyspraxia, along with dyslexia, dyscalculia, visual and auditory processing disorders used to fall under the label of Special Learning Disabilities (SpLD) of which there is much overlap and grey areas. From what I understand and sometimes see in my practice, dyspraxia does not include "uncontrollable limb movements"; it's more to do with poor balance, lack of coordination, being clumsy plus other non-related signs

 

[MotCO]

Recent posts haven't mentioned my point that you can't rule out there being a defence if there's reasonable doubt as to when the ticket was *in fact* lost and specifically whether or not it was before or after boarding (which is the point in time at which an 18(1) offence occurs). But small details may be crucial and an argument like this is better made by a professional who can see all the evidence.

Is Section 18(1) designed to stop people boarding without a ticket, otherwise, I cannot see how anyone can prove one way or another if someone had a ticket to board and had it at the time of boarding, but was only challenged sometime later? Further, is there a ticket barrier machine controlling the access to the platforms at the station the OP's daughter boarded - if there was, would this add substance to the fact that she had a ticket when she boarded but lost it sometime later?

I understand Section 18(2) relates to showing your ticket when asked, which would more properly cover this event. It would also remove any doubt about an episode earlier in the journey, i.e. when you boarded the train, since as I said above, no one can prove it one way or the other after the event.

 

[island]

The OPs daughter would still fall foul of 18(2) however though wouldn't they?

18 (2) hasn’t been charged and would now be out of time.

Is Section 18(1) designed to stop people boarding without a ticket, otherwise, I cannot see how anyone can prove one way or another if someone had a ticket to board and had it at the time of boarding, but was only challenged sometime later? Further, is there a ticket barrier machine controlling the access to the platforms at the station the OP's daughter boarded - if there was, would this add substance to the fact that she had a ticket when she boarded but lost it sometime later?

18 (1) makes it a strict liability offence to join a train unless you have with you a valid ticket. 18 (2) lacks the word “valid”.

I’ve only been to Ramsgate once and do not recall it being gated.

On the original matter, an unpaid fare notice bears the warning that the fare is payable within X days (10 usually) independently of any appeal or representations being made. This payment needed to have been made back in January unfortunately.

On the DBS question, this offence is not recordable and would not appear on a basic or standard DBS check barring a screw-up somewhere. It could theoretically appear on an enhanced check.

 

[eoff]

The train company issued an unpaid fare notice which provided an opportunity to regularise the situation by paying the fare due. If that has not been done they will, inevitably, take further action.

It is interesting to note that the Railway Industry's own guidelines "A Guide to Understanding the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018" has this definition...

"Unpaid Fare Notice" An alternative to purchasing a ticket, an Unpaid Fares Notice (UFN) is a bill that a customer will need to pay at a future date, for the fare for the travel they have completed.

A ticked was purchased and proof was offered so it seems to me reasonable to assume that once this was explained then you could expect no further action.

I suppose also the 18(1) charge could be challenged if the station did not have sufficient signage for the 'CTA' that section 18 seems to relate to and by saying that the ticket may have been dropped within the train and this is not known.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I suppose also the 18(1) charge could be challenged if the station did not have sufficient signage for the 'CTA' that section 18 seems to relate to and by saying that the ticket may have been dropped within the train and this is not known.

I think you may have misread byelaw 18. It starts

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
1. in any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area

So arguments about the clear signing of a compulsory ticket area are irrelevant (unless Ramsgate station is a CTA, but that would mean the argument succeeding for different reasons).

 

[eoff]

Yes, I must have been reading too many things at once.

 

[9mcbrides]

It has taken some time but I have good news.
A lawyer contacted Southeastern advising that he would defend my daughter in court applying for dismissal and indemnity costs if they persisted. He referred them to their own 'making rail accessible for older and disabled persons' policy - specifically to a section on penalty fares; evidence that the fare had been paid; and that they had failed to follow their complaints procedure as indicated in their own transcripts of the recorded telephone calls.
Finally, he pointed out that as she had evidenced the paid fare pursuing prosecution was not in the public interest.
Southeastern withdrew. They did not, however, confirm this in writing to my daughter until a month after the court date which caused her further distress.
However, it's over, no criminal conviction, her DBS remains clear and she need not worry about her employment now.

 

[furlong]

Glad to hear that you got that result eventually. Sadly it takes an experienced professional to know the right things to say to make them back down. If you do fancy taking it any further, as a result of the Post Office's scandalous treatment of some of its own postmasters, a potential opportunity has arisen for a review of the way certain private companies are able to use the criminal law to bully people - so you could contact your M.P. about what happened and potentially provide another example to try to get the system changed - see this thread.

 

[WesternLancer]

It has taken some time but I have good news.
A lawyer contacted Southeastern advising that he would defend my daughter in court applying for dismissal and indemnity costs if they persisted. He referred them to their own 'making rail accessible for older and disabled persons' policy - specifically to a section on penalty fares; evidence that the fare had been paid; and that they had failed to follow their complaints procedure as indicated in their own transcripts of the recorded telephone calls.
Finally, he pointed out that as she had evidenced the paid fare pursuing prosecution was not in the public interest.
Southeastern withdrew. They did not, however, confirm this in writing to my daughter until a month after the court date which caused her further distress.
However, it's over, no criminal conviction, her DBS remains clear and she need not worry about her employment now.

Thanks for coming back here with the update - it's helpful to read this good outcome. I hope the costs that I assume you had to pay for this help were not too onerous. I am sure it is a weight off your daughter's mind.

From time to time people asking for help here ask about places for good legal advice, if you think it appropriate, and you might recommend them, perhaps it might help others if you felt able to indicate the legal firm you used?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks for letting us know.

This is a good result - especially as we seemed to have come to a view that your daughter would lose by the letter of the law. So I guess that it proves the value of using a solicitor when there are good reasons (such as your daughter’s disability) to think that applying the letter of the law wouldn’t lead to a fair result.

 

[jumble]

Glad to hear that you got that result eventually. Sadly it takes an experienced professional to know the right things to say to make them back down. If you do fancy taking it any further, as a result of the Post Office's scandalous treatment of some of its own postmasters, a potential opportunity has arisen for a review of the way certain private companies are able to use the criminal law to bully people - so you could contact your M.P. about what happened and potentially provide another example to try to get the system changed - see this thread.

Lets be fair to the rail company
I suspect that there is no written record of the OP's Daughter being told that the UFN was no longer due and I suspect they would be unable to name the person on the other end of the relevant phone call.
The real lesson is get it in writing as unfortunately it appears the OPs Daughter seems to have been speaking to the man/woman with the broom who happened to answer the phone!
If there were an email/letter/phone recording from South Eastern stating "we are investigating and all action is on hold until we contact you again" life would have been a lot less stressful and cheaper.
I always assume that even the most stupid /lazy person will think a little bit more if they have to put into writing what they have just told me on the phone and if they refuse I will have no confidence in what they have just told me.

 

[WesternLancer]

Lets be fair to the rail company
I suspect that there is no written record of the OP's Daughter being told that the UFN was no longer due and I suspect they would be unable to name the person on the other end of the relevant phone call.
The real lesson is get it in writing as unfortunately it appears the OPs Daughter seems to have been speaking to the man/woman with the broom who happened to answer the phone!
If there were an email/letter/phone recording from South Eastern stating "we are investigating and all action is on hold until we contact you again" life would have been a lot less stressful and cheaper.
I always assume that even the most stupid /lazy person will think a little bit more if they have to put into writing what they have just told me on the phone and if they refuse I will have no confidence in what they have just told me.

Good points esp. about the need for stuff in writing. Always my view too.

The OP did say "She has asked for the recording of the telephone call, and has it."
could simply be that when faced with paying to debate this in court with a solicitor, potentially, and the time taken to get their side of the info from phone records + plus the individuals circs (condition of disability), the TOC decided better to pass the matter.

Didn't sound like SET were that speedy at putting their communications in writing even when solicitor involved.

 

[jumble]

Good points esp. about the need for stuff in writing. Always my view too.

The OP did say "She has asked for the recording of the telephone call, and has it."
could simply be that when faced with paying to debate this in court with a solicitor, potentially, and the time taken to get their side of the info from phone records + plus the individuals circs (condition of disability), the TOC decided better to pass the matter.

Didn't sound like SET were that speedy at putting their communications in writing even when solicitor involved.

I always get everything in writing but then I was bought up by a lawyer.
I am very aware that Lawyers earn thousands of pounds dealing with matters that could be sorted in 30 minutes if they had been put in writing

 

[9mcbrides]

Fortunately, it was not thousands of pounds, £90 to an e-lawyer service. Money well spent for my daughter's peace of mind. I posted the outcome so others might see that there may be a positive solution.
I want to thank everyone for the very many responses to my initial call for help, and for the existence of this forum.

 

[jumble]

Fortunately, it was not thousands of pounds, £90 to an e-lawyer service. Money well spent for my daughter's peace of mind. I posted the outcome so others might see that there may be a positive solution.
I want to thank everyone for the very many responses to my initial call for help, and for the existence of this forum.

Wow
That's an absolute bargain for the outcome you have received
If the mods allow I am sure many people would be grateful for the name of this service

 

[Haywain]

Wow
That's an absolute bargain for the outcome you have received
If the mods allow I am sure many people would be grateful for the name of this service

I'm not so sure about that - it's probably saved around £40 over an out of court settlement. So cheaper but no great bargain.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm not so sure about that - it's probably saved around £40 over an out of court settlement. So cheaper but no great bargain.

Probably true, but as far as we know when the OP stepped in to help daughter, circs had got to the point where out of court settlement did not look like it was being offered so would have involved more time on part of OP to try to get to that etc, so I suspect any saving would have been welcome not to mention an outcome that avoided court and related stress etc, in this case.

 

[jumble]

I'm not so sure about that - it's probably saved around £40 over an out of court settlement. So cheaper but no great bargain.

I do not share your confidence in assuming the OP could have achieved an out of court so this is a massive IF
In my job sometimes acting on behalf of customers I often find that as soon as a professional is involved fobbing off ceases

 

[Haywain]

when the OP stepped in to help daughter, circs had got to the point where out of court settlement did not look like it was being offered

I do not share your confidence in assuming the OP could have achieved an out of court

There is nothing in the thread to suggest that a settlement had been requested.

 

[9mcbrides]

@WesternLancer @jumble you are correct.