Help Daughter in Bits

[terraloon]

A view pleas as to whats likely to happen

My daughter and her boy friend were in a rush to get a train. Neither have travelled on a train for years.

They arrived at the last moment at the station just as the train was about to pull out, its a platform iswith the exit straight onto the road meaning they weren't stopped by barriers nor did they walk through a ticketing area . There is a ticket machine but the time they had really dint give them time to buy a ticket . The journey was no more than 10 minutes. The next station (end of line) they intended to buy a ticket
When they arrived , and before leaving the station there were a team of revenue protection staff talking so the boyfriend approached them (they were positioned before the barriers)and asked how he could pay.
It seems that things got out of hand but and they were told they should have taken certain steps to get a ticket. When she asked how she was expected to know what to do being a non frequent user and there being no signage ,or announcements to help direct them. Th e stock answer was about the onus being on her
At no time did they leave the platform until told too nor was their offer to pay the fare and any penalty taken up

Thoughts anyone please

 

[Greenback]

Hi Terraloon and welcome to the forum.

What I'm going to say is probably not what you want to hear. I'm afraid that the onus is very much on the passenger to ensure they purchase a ticket before travelling where there facilities to do so. Information on the journey and the conversation that occurred between the RPI's, your daughter and her boyfriend may be helpful.

I have to say that the claim of not knowing that they needed to buy a ticket due to irregular rail use doesn't really correspond with them offering to pay the fare and a penalty. Non rail users would be far more aware of the need to buy a ticket for a journey than they would be aware of penalty fares on the network.

That said, I could have misinterpreted what happened because of the wording. Anyway, did the RPI's take their details? The rail company would be interested in knowing whether, having passed up one opportunity to pay, the passengers would have attempted to buy a ticket if there hadn't been inspectors there.

In my opinion, it's likely that if details were taken they will end up being invited to pay a fixed amount by way of an admin charge in order to avoid being prosecuted. I am afraid that having not bought a ticket before getting on the train they have committed an offence, and arriving late at the station is not a reason not to buy a ticket.

 

[A-driver]

Like most things, ignorance to the rules (or laws) does not give someone an excuse I'm afraid.

I'm interested in what you mean by 'things got out of hand' as that may well influence the action taken by the inspectors. How did it get 'out of hand'?

 

[najaB]

My daughter and her boy friend were in a rush to get a train. Neither have travelled on a train for years.

From the TOC's point of view (and the legislation) it doesn't matter if they are regular travellers or not.

They arrived at the last moment at the station just as the train was about to pull out, its a platform iswith the exit straight onto the road meaning they weren't stopped by barriers nor did they walk through a ticketing area . There is a ticket machine but the time they had really dint give them time to buy a ticket .

I know you don't want to hear this, but it's the traveller's responsibility to arrive with enough time to buy a ticket. Again, this is something the TOC will have heard many times, and it has zero relevance as a mitigating factor.

The journey was no more than 10 minutes.The next station (end of line) they intended to buy a ticket.

Where was the journey from and to?

When they arrived , and before leaving the station there were a team of revenue protection staff talking so the boyfriend approached them (they were positioned before the barriers)and asked how he could pay.

This is in their favour - the fact that they went to the RPI and asked to pay.

It seems that things got out of hand...

This is definitely not in their favour!

When she asked how she was expected to know what to do being a non frequent user and there being no signage ,or announcements to help direct them. Th e stock answer was about the onus being on her.

What station were they travelling from? I'm surprised that there was no signage to the effect that you have to of buy your ticket before travelling.

At no time did they leave the platform until told too nor was their offer to pay the fare and any penalty taken up

Thoughts anyone please

From an outsider's perspective, two people got on a train without a ticket, got caught by RPIs when they got off the train and got shirty with them. It doesn't look good.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, indeed, A-Driver, that is the part of the additional information that I was referring to. A sit is , I read the OP as an argument developing between the two parties, but in what way is likely to have bearing on what happens.

 

[Haywain]

They arrived at the last moment at the station just as the train was about to pull out, its a platform is with the exit straight onto the road meaning they weren't stopped by barriers nor did they walk through a ticketing area . There is a ticket machine but the time they had really dint give them time to buy a ticket .

When she asked how she was expected to know what to do being a non frequent user and there being no signage ,or announcements to help direct them.

How did you daughter know there was no signage and no announcements? It doesn't sound as if there was sufficient time to look/listen for them.

 

[455driver]

The fact they approached the RPIs won't make any difference because was scenario A or B-

A/ oh look there is somebody we can buy a ticket from.
Or
B/ oh sh#t RPIs, I had better approach them or I will be in trouble.

The fact is the RPIs were positioned by the exit so how exactly could they leave the station without approaching them first?

If they are indeed infrequent travellers then I think it fair to assume they would arrive early enough to ensure they are travelling properly, how many other forms of mass transport do you travel and then pay for it?

 

[LateThanNever]

How did you daughter know there was no signage and no announcements? It doesn't sound as if there was sufficient time to look/listen for them.

Clearly what is meant is that there was no obvious signage or announcements which would be no more than most reasonable people would expect if they are supposed to be committing a crime by walking in off the street and see no barrier to them boarding a train. Most reasonable people would presume you pay on the train and in the absence of that pay at the other end. Something which they obviously tried to do and is no more or less than reasonable. The fact that the railway is threatening prosecution because of a specialist law legislated in a different age of which the overwhelming majority of their passengers are ignorant is unreasonable. I would suggest it is time also to involve the local MP.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The fact they approached the RPIs won't make any difference because was scenario A or B-

A/ oh look there is somebody we can buy a ticket from.
Or
B/ oh sh#t RPIs, I had better approach them or I will be in trouble.

The fact is the RPIs were positioned by the exit so how exactly could they leave the station without approaching them first?

If they are indeed infrequent travellers then I think it fair to assume they would arrive early enough to ensure they are travelling properly, how many other forms of mass transport do you travel and then pay for it?

The train - but just not every train!

 

[EM2]

Even though the OP states that there was a ticket machine?

 

[najaB]

Clearly what is meant is that there was no obvious signage or announcements which would be no more than most reasonable people would expect if they are supposed to be committing a crime by walking in off the street and see no barrier to them boarding a train.

This is why we need to know what station they boarded at - most stations with ticket machines also have signs saying to buy before you board.

 

[455driver]

The train - but just not every train!

But they are infrequent travellers so wouldn't know that!
My point is that however else they travel (except taxi) they will have to pay first.

 

[Haywain]

Clearly what is meant is that there was no obvious signage or announcements which would be no more than most reasonable people would expect if they are supposed to be committing a crime by walking in off the street and see no barrier to them boarding a train. Most reasonable people would presume you pay on the train and in the absence of that pay at the other end. Something which they obviously tried to do and is no more or less than reasonable. The fact that the railway is threatening prosecution because of a specialist law legislated in a different age of which the overwhelming majority of their passengers are ignorant is unreasonable. I would suggest it is time also to involve the local MP.

Enjoy that rant, did you? Now that you've got that off your chest, perhaps you'd like to return to the case in question and note that the OP's daughter got on the train without bothering to read any signs or listen for any announcements, but did see that there was a ticket machine. I think that a reasonable person would see that as an indication that a ticket should be purchased. As for getting an MP involved, I think you'll need a lot more information than we have here before that is a relevant course of action.

 

[terraloon]

Interesting response thanks

The station was Dorchester South to Weymouth
She knows there is machine there as she has been back there following the incident to see.
it got out of hand because a newly trained chap insisted on the two being separated, without explanation to why . His supervisor had to intervene to try and draw the matter to a conclusion and indeed commented along the lines he is new to the job.
An important point the RP chaps weren't positioned at the exit the boyfriend went to them.

Just a coulple more points
They were told by the RP that they may be required to pay a fine and penalty. That's why they offered to pay it there and then
She was asked for a lot of personal details he wasn't.

 

[Llanigraham]

Clearly what is meant is that there was no obvious signage or announcements which would be no more than most reasonable people would expect if they are supposed to be committing a crime by walking in off the street and see no barrier to them boarding a train. Most reasonable people would presume you pay on the train and in the absence of that pay at the other end. Something which they obviously tried to do and is no more or less than reasonable. The fact that the railway is threatening prosecution because of a specialist law legislated in a different age of which the overwhelming majority of their passengers are ignorant is unreasonable. I would suggest it is time also to involve the local MP.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The train - but just not every train!

Did you bother to read and actually understand what was in the opening post? Because from that very ill-advised reply I somewhat doubt it.

To the OP, please ignore this "rant" as the writer is incorrect.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Clearly what is meant is that there was no obvious signage or announcements which would be no more than most reasonable people would expect if they are supposed to be committing a crime by walking in off the street and see no barrier to them boarding a train. Most reasonable people would presume you pay on the train and in the absence of that pay at the other end. Something which they obviously tried to do and is no more or less than reasonable. The fact that the railway is threatening prosecution because of a specialist law legislated in a different age of which the overwhelming majority of their passengers are ignorant is unreasonable. I would suggest it is time also to involve the local MP.

I agree with others that this post is an unhelpful rant, and actually misleading.

The current Railway Byelaws were last revised and updated in 2005 and clearly state:

18 (1) 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.

Admittedly, there have been similar (and equally clear) regulations applying to rail travel in the UK since a 'different age', but the very persistence of this requirement for so very long makes it even harder to justify ignorance, especially the astonising claim that the "overwhelming majority of passengers" are ignorant of this long standing requirement to hold a valid ticket before travelling by train.

Very unhelpful.

 

[LateThanNever]

I agree with others that this post is an unhelpful rant, and actually misleading.

The current Railway Byelaws were last revised and updated in 2005 and clearly state:

Admittedly, there have been similar (and equally clear) regulations applying to rail travel in the UK since a 'different age', but the very persistence of this requirement for so very long makes it even harder to justify ignorance, especially the astonising claim that the "overwhelming majority of passengers" are ignorant of this long standing requirement to hold a valid ticket before travelling by train.

Very unhelpful.

Pardon me for suggesting the law is considerably less than perfect, but this is the nub of the problem. The fact is this railway law is based on legislation in a different age and the fact that it has been persistent over the centuries is an indictment of our legislators. It does nothing to inform young people who would quite reasonably assume that the law would be that related to a contract for a service, which is the most logical category for today's world. Indeed delay compensation implies this. To presume that any more than a tiny minority are acquainted with this legislation is implausible. And among the young it is likely that there is complete ignorance.
It is therefore unsurprising that the railway's overt recklessness with regard to ensuring their own ability to issue and collect fares leads to a certain recklessness in paying them.
It is a long way away from Natural Justice that the corporate railway should receive the support of the criminal law to back up their own reckless behaviour.

And the legislators are long overdue to put this right. The fact that they tinkered with the legislation in 2005 - during an era which was a byword for lackadaisical drafting when legislation was often guillotined and undiscussed is of even less reassurance and why I suggested the current legislators should be informed of their predecessors' carelessness.

 

[bb21]

Pardon me for suggesting the law is considerably less than perfect, but this is the nub of the problem. The fact is this railway law is based on legislation in a different age and the fact that it has been persistent over the centuries is an indictment of our legislators. It does nothing to inform young people who would quite reasonably assume that the law would be that related to a contract for a service, which is the most logical category for today's world. Indeed delay compensation implies this. To presume that any more than a tiny minority are acquainted with this legislation is implausible. And among the young it is likely that there is complete ignorance.
It is therefore unsurprising that the railway's overt recklessness with regard to ensuring their own ability to issue and collect fares leads to a certain recklessness in paying them.
It is a long way away from Natural Justice that the corporate railway should receive the support of the criminal law to back up their own reckless behaviour.

And the legislators are long overdue to put this right. The fact that they tinkered with the legislation in 2005 - during an era which was a byword for lackadaisical drafting when legislation was often guillotined and undiscussed is of even less reassurance and why I suggested the current legislators should be informed of their predecessors' carelessness.

How is this at all helpful to the OP?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Pardon me for suggesting the law is considerably less than perfect, but this is the nub of the problem.

No, I won't. Not only do I still disagree with you on matters of fact, the main reason why I won't pardon you is that your argument really is of no assistance to the matter in hand:

terraloon has quite specifically asked for thoughts relevant to "My daughter and her boy friend were in a rush to get a train. . . . . there were a team of revenue protection staff . . . . they were told they should have taken certain steps to get a ticket . . . . They were told by the RP that they may be required to pay a fine and penalty."


Just because I recognise errors of fact in your posts, and that I also disgree with your analysis is no reason for wanting to silence you, it's just that these don't help terraloon. In fact, I suspect they may give false hope or an unfruitful waste of her time.

You'll find a more relevant discussion in any of these threads (and I know that there have been several others) where a fundamental challenge to Railway legislation is precisely what the threads have been about:

15,000 words on Railway Law

Dodgy Fare Advice?

Fare evaders - what happens if they run?

Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"

Penalty Fare-enforcement may involve Blackmail

Thrown away ticket, now accused of fare evasion. Advice?

[There are plenty more if you just do a simple Google search begining "site:railforums.co.uk" followed by the keywords that interest you]

I will happily assist you in any of those more abstract or technical arguments if you wanted to look further at the history, the public perception, the public acceptance and the relevance to popular and consumer contracts, though I might have preferred analogies within the transporation sector (car hire, bus journeys, air travel, packet consignments, postal delivery, bike rental, etc.) - but in the proper place, please. You might be surprised at how sympathetic I would be to your criticisms there than I am in this thread.

But in a brief response:

The fact that they tinkered with the legislation in 2005 - during an era which was a byword for lackadaisical drafting when legislation was often guillotined and undiscussed is of even less reassurance and why I suggested the current legislators should be informed of their predecessors' carelessness.

I really can't see the evidence for your 'tinkering' argument in the 2005 Byelaws. Have you read through the various revisions and rewrites? A study of the failures of the pre-privitisation Byelaws shows that the overhaul in 1996 and 2001 were very radical. But the ticketless travel matter has always been clear - even the 1965 Byelaw about tickets was utterly clear:

3 (2) No person other than an authorised person shall enter any vehicle for the purpose of travelling unless and until he or she or someone on his or her behalf shall have obtained from the Board or from an authorised person a ticket or other authority entitling him or her to travel therein.

How has that been 'tinkered with' at the expense of any clarity, relevance or application? [But if you want to respond, then do so elsewhere]
I stronly urge terraloon not to attempt to employ LateThanNever's argument that knowledge of rail travel would rightly be compared with a service industry. This would be a) doomed and b) flawed. It won't help your children.

 

[EM2]

It does nothing to inform young people who would quite reasonably assume that the law would be that related to a contract for a service, which is the most logical category for today's world.

Would they also assume that they pay after eating in McDonald's (something which would have been completely alien to my grandparents), or after watching a film at the Odeon, or after travelling on a bus? I doubt it very much.
Cases of when you pay for a service or good vary from place to place and provider to provider. It is the responsibility of those receiving those services or goods to ascertain when payment is required.

 

[martinsh]

Would they also assume that they pay after eating in McDonald's (something which would have been completely alien to my grandparents), or after watching a film at the Odeon, or after travelling on a bus? .

1) lots of bus companies used to have a "pay as you leave" system

2) not quite McDonalds, but I can go to the pub and not pay until I leave. Also most restaurants, with waiter service surely ?

 

[najaB]

1) lots of bus companies used to have a "pay as you leave" system

2) not quite McDonalds, but I can go to the pub and not pay until I leave. Also most restaurants, with waiter service surely ?

The OP stated that they didn't buy a ticket at the station because they were in a hurry, if they had arrived earlier they would have bought one. This side discussion is totally unrelated to the facts as stated.

They saw a ticket machine and decided not to use it - the only relevant question is if there was any signage saying that they could/could not buy on board.

 

[MyFriendMary]

When she asked how she was expected to know what to do being a non frequent user and there being no signage, or announcements to help direct them. The stock answer was about the onus being on her

If she has arrived via Weymouth Avenue then the Penalty Fare sign is by the car park and open platform area which she would have had to walk past if the ticket office was closed. They would have then needed to go over the bridge to get to the, usual, platform for Weymouth.

If via Cromwell road, then it is on the wall facing away from the station which is again walked passed to access platform 2 which, usually, goes to Weymouth. Through this exit the ticket machine is right beside the entranceway.

Was only at Dorchester South a few weeks ago so it is, reasonably, fresh in the mind.

While on board did your daughter and friend make no attempt to find the Guard on the train to purchase tickets off, explaining the situation? I find South West train's have some of the best Guards in terms of ease-of-finding, the glass boxes help, and had they - then there wouldn't have been any trouble at arrival at Weymouth

 

[Deerfold]

1) lots of bus companies used to have a "pay as you leave" system

Where/when was this?

 

[Greenback]

Interesting response thanks

The station was Dorchester South to Weymouth
She knows there is machine there as she has been back there following the incident to see.
it got out of hand because a newly trained chap insisted on the two being separated, without explanation to why . His supervisor had to intervene to try and draw the matter to a conclusion and indeed commented along the lines he is new to the job.
An important point the RP chaps weren't positioned at the exit the boyfriend went to them.

Just a coulple more points
They were told by the RP that they may be required to pay a fine and penalty. That's why they offered to pay it there and then
She was asked for a lot of personal details he wasn't.

Thank you for the clarification. I think it's likely that your daughter will receive a letter asking her for her version of events at some point. The letter may say that prosecution is being considered.

When that happens, my advice is always to provide a truthful, factual, non emotional and brief account of what happened, along with an apology and an offer to settle the matter by way of a payment that will cover the administrative costs of dealing with the ticketless travel plus any fare due.

It is also possible, though unlikely in my view, that the company will decide not to proceed and nothing will happen. This would be more likely if the report from the inspectors admitted that procedures weren't followed correctly.

To everyone else, discussing McDonalds and pubs is of little help to the OP. The fact is that regardless of other industries, the railway has its own set of byelaws that make it the passenger's responsibility to buy a ticket before travelling where there are facilities to do so.

 

[Urban Gateline]

Dorchester South also has quite generous ticket office opening hours for such a small station, so if the OP's daughter and boyfriend travelled without a ticket whilst the booking office was open that is another opportunity to purchase missed. There are trains around every half hour to Weymouth so they could have waited for the next service, they obviously arrived at the station too late, not leaving enough time to buy a ticket.

The fact that it's a 10 minute Journey means fare evasion is probably rife as it is on most short hop Journeys, Weymouth is not barriered and there are not always RPI's checking tickets there so if you see it from an RPI's point of view they ignored ticket purchasing facilities, possibly chancing not being checked on-train or at Weymouth! Would they really have purchased tickets for their Journey if someone at Weymouth hadn't stopped them?

 

[Greenback]

Would they really have purchased tickets for their Journey if someone at Weymouth hadn't stopped them?

That is undoubtedly the question that the TOC will ask themselves. Unfortunately on short journeys some people think it is acceptable to only pay when challenged, as they realise that the chances are that they won't be challenged on the majority of occasions. That's partly why the byelaws make it the responsibility of the passenger to buy a ticket before boarding...

 

[IanD]

Where/when was this?

In mildly racists Two Ronnies news items.

 

[30907]

Where/when was this?

Guernsey in the 70's, outward from St Peter Port IIRC. May not be unique.

 

[LateThanNever]

No, I won't. Not only do I still disagree with you on matters of fact, the main reason why I won't pardon you is that your argument really is of no assistance to the matter in hand:

terraloon has quite specifically asked for thoughts relevant to "My daughter and her boy friend were in a rush to get a train. . . . . there were a team of revenue protection staff . . . . they were told they should have taken certain steps to get a ticket . . . . They were told by the RP that they may be required to pay a fine and penalty."


Just because I recognise errors of fact in your posts, and that I also disgree with your analysis is no reason for wanting to silence you, it's just that these don't help terraloon. In fact, I suspect they may give false hope or an unfruitful waste of her time.

You'll find a more relevant discussion in any of these threads (and I know that there have been several others) where a fundamental challenge to Railway legislation is precisely what the threads have been about:

15,000 words on Railway Law

Dodgy Fare Advice?

Fare evaders - what happens if they run?

Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"

Penalty Fare-enforcement may involve Blackmail

Thrown away ticket, now accused of fare evasion. Advice?

[There are plenty more if you just do a simple Google search begining "site:railforums.co.uk" followed by the keywords that interest you]

I will happily assist you in any of those more abstract or technical arguments if you wanted to look further at the history, the public perception, the public acceptance and the relevance to popular and consumer contracts, though I might have preferred analogies within the transporation sector (car hire, bus journeys, air travel, packet consignments, postal delivery, bike rental, etc.) - but in the proper place, please. You might be surprised at how sympathetic I would be to your criticisms there than I am in this thread.

But in a brief response: I really can't see the evidence for your 'tinkering' argument in the 2005 Byelaws. Have you read through the various revisions and rewrites? A study of the failures of the pre-privitisation Byelaws shows that the overhaul in 1996 and 2001 were very radical. But the ticketless travel matter has always been clear - even the 1965 Byelaw about tickets was utterly clear: How has that been 'tinkered with' at the expense of any clarity, relevance or application? [But if you want to respond, then do so elsewhere]
I stronly urge terraloon not to attempt to employ LateThanNever's argument that knowledge of rail travel would rightly be compared with a service industry. This would be a) doomed and b) flawed. It won't help your children.

I agree in most particulars. I just think it is psychologically beneficial to put the matter in context. And it gives me / 'one' / the OP more motivation if you actually realise that the corporate railway is - morally - pushing its luck, particularly for the young.

 

[34D]

Just to clarify, the boyfriend _wasnt_ asked for his name/address?

Did either daughter or boyfriend get abusive with the rail staff?