Help with unpaid fare dispute

[Mrcommonsense]

I'm hoping for some advice on the following matter (I'll try not to include my personal opinions about the system and just stick with the facts)

Alleged offence took place on journey my wife took from Waun-Gron Park to Cardiff Queen Street recently.

Ticket machine at Waun Gron Park does not work, train staff have advised customers not to use it and have stated that they have complained to "head office" about it as it takes customers money but doesn't give out tickets. My wife has witnessed the machine taking customer's money and also the train guards telling her directly not to use it. No other option for purchasing tickets before boarding the train.

No option to buy ticket on the train as too busy for the guard to move (and journey is usually about 5 mins). For info, train guards have always historically told my wife to buy her ticket when leaving the train because they are not able to sell her the monthly pass she always buys (and has done for previous 4 years). No option to buy monthly pass before getting on train or on train itself, and on this day no option to buy any ticket before travelling or on the train.

On arrival at queen street (late) there were significant problems at the station with overcrowding because of many late/delayed trains and the ticket machines at the station being broken (not accepting card payments). Monthly passes are sold by a single man in a ticket office outside of the barriers and the staff at Queen Street who were manning the barriers always let people through to buy said monthly tickets from that specific office (only place there are available). My wife was let through the barrier to purchase the monthly ticket, as she always is. She then queues for a significant amount of time at the ticket office selling monthly returns but because the train was already late and the queue was very large because of the other issues stated above my she left the queue, knowing that she can buy her monthly return ticket on the way home and for it to include the cost of the morning journey from Waun Gron Park as it has always done in the past.

At this point REO stops her and asks to see ticket, wife responds with the above and REO tells her to come and give a statement. REO kept stating tickets must be bought before boarding the train and my wife repeated the fact this was not possible. REO makes my wife give a statement and says they will submit it to the Rail Company (Arriva Trains Wales). He says that she will receive a letter explaining what has happened and warning her. My wife asks whether this will result in any further fines or penalties or her getting a criminal record, to which he responds "no they will just give you a warning and that will be it." He then says take a copy of the monthly return ticket when she buys it and send it in response to the letter to show that it covers this journey and that will be the end of it. REO gives no opportunity to pay for fare at any point of this process.

When letter arrives it is much more threatening than was suggested, threatening court action etc . Wife responds as suggested by REO with details of ticket and showing it covers the fare for that journey and thinks that will be the end of it.

She has now received a letter stating that Transport Investigations Ltd have contacted the rail company and they see no reason why this case shouldn't proceed with an "issue of a Summons may now be made" and referring to boarding a train without obtaining a valid ticket prior to boarding, and that there was intent to avoid a fare (1889 railway act 5(3) is quoted, and also byelaw 18 of National Railways Byelaws(2005). Doing some research this seems to be quite serious.

I have read the procedures of Arriva Trains Wales, some of which is here:

The underlying principal of this process is to protect passengers who make an innocent mistake from those who are deliberate ticketless passengers. In the first instance the customer will be asked for payment with a reasonable administration charge. The process is intended to identify those who are constant offenders or those that have carried out acts of fraud. For those passengers who have attempted to defraud we have no option but to carry out court proceedings.

Process Overview
All Passengers must have a the correct ticket for the journey they are taking and it is their responsibility to have one, they must how ever be given an opportunity to purchase tickets before entering this process. These are:

Booking office
TVM
On train
If there has not been an opportunity to purchase a ticket then the passenger should be sold the correct one. In the event of a passenger choosing not to purchase a ticket they will be interviewed. After a passenger has been interviewed for travelling without a valid ticket, before any further action is taken the customer will be written to and given 21days to confirm the details of the information provided at the time. They will be offered the opportunity to provide clarification or any mitigating circumstances.


Amongst other things, my issues with this are:

1) no opportunity to buy ticket before hoarding train, plus railway staff specifically tell passengers not to use ticket machine at WGP.
2) no opportunity to buy ticket on train
3) train guards on train have always advised my wife to buy her monthly return ticket when she leaves the train as it can only be bought at destination station
4) REO didn't offer opportunity to purchase ticket at that point even when my wife explained what she was planning on doing
5) ticket was paid for in full as explained and presented to Transport Investigations Ltd
6) REO assurance that nothing further would happen seems to not be the case
7) first offence for what is at worst a £2.30 single ticket - clearly gives reference in Arriva Trains Wales guidelines that these are not the types of passengers that they are trying to "catch" with these laws and enforcing of them (and that is assuming wife had no intention of paying, which she clearly did, and did).


ROR act 1889 5(3) mentions INTENT not to pay, which is clearly not the case as explained from the outset to REO by my wife.

NRB 2005 byelaw 18 point 3 states no person should be in breach of bye law 18(1) or 18(2) if there were no facilities in working order at the station where journey began, which is clearly the case. Same point also states no breach if an authorised person gives permission to travel without a ticket, which is historically true, plus my wife was actually let through the barriers at destination without a ticket.

Please can someone give some advice on the above. I'm particularly keen to remove the prospect of any legal proceedings or significant costs ASAP.

Many thanks

 

[Fare-Cop]

she left the queue, knowing that she can buy her monthly return ticket on the way home and for it to include the cost of the morning journey from Waun Gron Park as it has always done in the past.

A monthly ticket purchased later in the day will not include any journey made hours before.

For example, if someone does not hold a ticket at 8 a.m. but does not pay that fare and leaves the railway then, goes back purchases a weekly, or monthly ticket at 5 p.m. it will be valid from the station & time of issue only, which will be printed upon it.

If there were no facilities at the starting station X, a ticket bought at destination station Y will only include the journey previously made, if that journey is declared and the ticket is purchased as starting from station X and this should be done before leaving the railway at the end of the first journey.

 

[furlong]

Can your wife demonstrate a long history of purchase of consecutive monthly tickets?

He says that she will receive a letter explaining what has happened and warning her. My wife asks whether this will result in any further fines or penalties or her getting a criminal record, to which he responds "no they will just give you a warning and that will be it." He then says take a copy of the monthly return ticket when she buys it and send it in response to the letter to show that it covers this journey and that will be the end of it.

So are you claiming that the company gave your wife a verbal undertaking that there would be no prosecution subject to her carrying out certain actions, which she has since done? Did your wife mention this undertakiing in her reply (in case it had not been documented by the officer)? It would have been helpful if it had occurred to her to insist that this was put in writing at the time, but of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[34D]

My wife was let through the barrier to purchase the monthly ticket, as she always is. She then queues for a significant amount of time at the ticket office selling monthly returns but because the train was already late and the queue was very large because of the other issues stated above my she left the queue, knowing that she can buy her monthly return ticket on the way home and for it to include the cost of the morning journey from Waun Gron Park as it has always done in the past.

I absolutely sympathise (on a personal level) however walking away from the queue will likely be seen as intent. How long was she in this queue (cctv may well be able to back you up)

 

[ian959]

As far as I can see from what you have said, there was no problem until your wife left the queue to buy a ticket. At that point, no matter how much you might disagree with things, your wife broke the law. She did not have and never will have a valid ticket for her journey. As Farecop rightly points out in my view, the monthly ticket that she subsequently purchases does not cover the morning journey she made.

That said a RoRA prosecution seems rather over the top and probably unlikely to succeed even if legal representation was poor but a Byelaw prosecution seems fairly open and shut.

Note that intent to avoid the payment of the ticket was shown by your wife leaving the queue to buy a ticket.

Morally of course ATW should back down and fix the ticket machines so that they work reliably. Don't expect that to happen though.

In the circumstances I do wonder whether some 'attitude' was demonstrated in the original response to TIL which may have caused them not to accept what seems to be an otherwise morally reasonable case for not buying a ticket.

 

[Clip]

I think the problem for your wife arises in as much as, yes she was going to purchase a ticket at the ticket office in Cardiff but she then took it upon herself to leave without purchasing one, therefore Im guessing the TOC will see it as a deliberate attempt to avoid paying her fare for that mornings journey.

Whether or not she was going to purchase one later in the day, it may be that she could take the bus home or some such and save herself a few quid on the fare.

I am not calling your wife a fare dodger but trying to let you see it from the TOCs point of view - she blatantly tried to leave without paying her fare.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

First of all please excuse the basic typos and spelling mistakes in my original post - the joys of trying to write on an iPad with 3% battery remaining!

Fare-Cop - your point about the monthly ticket - if that is the case then my wife has been mis-sold her tickets. Firstly she specifically told the REO and he agreed this covered her for her morning journey, and secondly when she purchased the ticket she specifically told the ticket seller that she wanted it to include the journey from Waun Gran Park to Cardiff Queen Street in the morning (and the same thing for every previous monthly ticket she has purchased).

Thirdly, why would she have been told by the guards on the train that she doesn't need to buy a ticket on the train (and instead to buy that ticket at the destination station), why was she let through the barriers to buy that said ticket on that day and why was she let through the barriers on every previous occasion for the last 4 years to purchase that specific ticket. If she has been told by staff at numerous locations on numerous occasions and is sold tickets each time after stating where her journey starts, how can she believe anything other than the fact that monthly return covers the initial journey?

Surely the only argument here is that she left the queue with the intention of buying the ticket later, rather than the ticket she was buying not covering the first journey??

 

[Mrcommonsense]

@Furlong - yes I'm sure that was put in the letter but as far as I am aware it wasn't put in the statement made at the time (my wife was obviously flustered)

@ian959 - I understand what you are saying but surely "intent to not pay" is mitigated by her explanation of the ticket she was to purchase later covering the journey in the morning (and the fact she has always purchased monthly return tickets and has always been advised they do cover the morning journey). I do think that something in the initial response to TIL eluded to the fact that surely it is a better investment to fix broken ticket machines/provide proper opportunities for ticket purchase and more likely to achieve the goals of increased rail travel and payment of fares then it is to invest in prosecuting people who have always paid their fares and had every intention of doing so. To be honest if that has led them to get heavy then all they will achieve is an income loss of approx £600 per year when my wife can no longer use the train for fear of prosecution if she can't trust the information that is given to her by railway staff.

@Clip - yes she left the queue, but as stated it was because she was under the assumption based on a history of being sold a ticket and being told it covers her morning journey that she did this - which was also the first thing she stated to the REO when he asked her whether she had a ticket. Shouldn't the REO given her the opportunity to buy a ticket at that point? Or am I misinterpreting the rules here?

If people of authority working for the company in question repeatedly tell you something is true (the monthly return covers the morning journey), how can one seriously be expected to question that?

I can see numerous failings here, but in reality before she complains to the relevant people I want to make sure any potential proceedings are stopped and the "legal" side of the matter drawn to a close - what does anyone think the best course of action would be to achieve that?

Thanks for your responses so far btw.

 

[furlong]

Why would she leave the queue when she did and not wait for as long as it took?

Note that intent to avoid the payment of the ticket was shown by your wife leaving the queue to buy a ticket.

Mightn't that point be argued, depending on factors such as the length of the queue, how long she actually waited, whether she can justify her decision to leave the queue when she did claiming she would return to pay later, whether she can demonstrate a solid history of similar season ticket purchases etc.?

 

[Clip]

Why would she leave the queue when she did and not wait for as long as it took?



Mightn't that point be argued, depending on factors such as the length of the queue, how long she actually waited, whether she can justify her decision to leave the queue when she did claiming she would return to pay later, whether she can demonstrate a solid history of similar season ticket purchases etc.?

Quite frankly whether she was going to pay later on in the day is irrelevant.

Couldnt, purchase ticket at start of journey nor on the journey - not a problem. First opportunity to purchase ticket and they didnt and tried to leave the station. There fore they have deliberatly attempted to avoid paying the fare for their journey.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

ROR act 1889 5(3) mentions INTENT not to pay, which is clearly not the case as explained from the outset to REO by my wife.

I'm sure that is correct. However, the word 'intent' is defined in Law not by what may be in a person's mind (which cannot be regarded as objective evidence) but by their words and actions (which can be observed, recorded, reported and cited as objective evidence). In the analysis of a rail passenger having the intention to avoid payment, the most often cited authority is Corbyn v Saunders, in which the passenger was seen to have passed an opportunity to buy a ticket and in which it was found that 'intent' need not be a permanent intention, simply a moment of opportunity which was not taken.

. . . . however walking away from the queue will likely be seen as intent. How long was she in this queue (cctv may well be able to back you up)

That's correct, though it is questionable that CCTV records will still be accessible, never mind available.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

I'm not sure of the length of time she queued (other than in her words it was "ages"), but just as an example when she returned to buy that ticket a few hours later (she went back to purchase it on her lunch break rather than on her way home because she was worried about what had happened) the single man ticket office - the only place where the monthly return could be purchased at that station - was closed for an hour whilst the ticket seller was having a lunch break.

If she arrived at the station from her first journey at that time, and as has always been the case in the past on the advice of numerous member of train staff had gone through the barriers to purchase that ticket she wouldn't have been able to at that point because no one was there to sell it. Remember, on this day the ticket machine at the departure station was broken, no chance to buy tickets on the train, ticket machines broken at the destination station, and no one in the ticket office because they are on their lunch break. Is she expected to wait there indefinitely?

And for the record she always purchases the monthly ticket, has done for last 4 years and noted that in her first response to TIL.

 

[furlong]

Quite frankly whether she was going to pay later on in the day is irrelevant.

I disagree (trying to argue that leaving, for a good reason, a long queue might not constitute avoiding an opportunity to pay) - but - if that was indeed her intent, why didn't she scribble out and pass to the ticket clerk a quick signed IOU note with name/address and the ticket required (and perhaps even a credit card number) stating she couldn't afford to wait any longer now but would return at (for example) 4pm to pay?

 

[Llanigraham]

I disagree (trying to argue that leaving, for a good reason, a long queue might not constitute avoiding an opportunity to pay) - but - if that was indeed her intent, why didn't she scribble out and pass to the ticket clerk a quick signed IOU note with name/address and the ticket required (and perhaps even a credit card number) stating she couldn't afford to wait any longer now but would return at (for example) 4pm to pay?

Do you honestly believe that any Ticket Office would accept that?

This lady was stood in the queue to buy her ticket, but decided that she couldn't wait any longer so walked away.
That can easily be deemed as intent not to pay for her ticket; end of!

 

[VisualAcid]

There clearly needs to be a ruling brought in on this situation having read the other thread on the EMT situation. I've had delayed trains and then long queues at my destination for a ticket. The TOC has clearly provided their service poorly for a short and cheap journey, the passenger here thinks the ticket will be fine (albeit incorrectly, though reasonably it makes no difference). This is typical of Arriva's facilities and their problem IMO.

 

[furlong]

Do you honestly believe that any Ticket Office would accept that?

If their queue length is exceeding the targets, they are supposed to make accommodations.

 

[Clip]

I disagree (trying to argue that leaving, for a good reason, a long queue might not constitute avoiding an opportunity to pay) - but - if that was indeed her intent, why didn't she scribble out and pass to the ticket clerk a quick signed IOU note with name/address and the ticket required (and perhaps even a credit card number) stating she couldn't afford to wait any longer now but would return at (for example) 4pm to pay?

Really? You really are cluthcing at straws here. I cannot possibly fathom how you would find this acceptabel at all.

You are advocating giving some one your credit card number? I dont care if they are booking office staff that is the most stupid thing I have ever read on here - and theres been a few, myself included.

And no, we dont do IOU's in that sense thanks.

 

[transmanche]

In situations such as this, it would be better if the RPI acted as a 'queue-buster', selling tickets to people who were trying to purchase their ticket - rather than trying to catch people out, which smells of entrapment.

 

[jon0844]

It's not entrapment, but you are right about staff going into queue busting mode (as in they should).

 

[transmanche]

It's not entrapment, but you are right about staff going into queue busting mode (as in they should).

The TOC are aware of the TVM problems yet rather than do anything about it (e,g, fix it, put an RPI at the origin station to sell tickets, put an RPI on the train so that everyone has the opportunity to buy a ticket en route, or use the RPI as a queue-buster at the destination station) they prefer to penalise people who have no intention of avoiding payment of their fare - because this is more lucrative for the TOC.

So yes, whilst it''s not entrapment in the legal sense - but (in my opinion) it's a "bit dodgy" and not really "on the level".

 

[ian959]

The TOC are aware of the TVM problems yet rather than do anything about it (e,g, fix it, put an RPI at the origin station to sell tickets, put an RPI on the train so that everyone has the opportunity to buy a ticket en route, or use the RPI as a queue-buster at the destination station) they prefer to penalise people who have no intention of avoiding payment of their fare - because this is more lucrative for the TOC.

So yes, whilst it''s not entrapment in the legal sense - but (in my opinion) it's a "bit dodgy" and not really "on the level".

I would agree with all that - right up until the person walked away from the queue to buy the ticket, thus demonstrating legal intent of avoiding the payment of a fare however unintended it might have been. As I said earlier, morally ATW should back down on this occasion and fix the machines but Arriva have never shown any inclination to do anything apart from make as much money as they can whilst spending as little as they can get away with.

 

[island]

That said a RoRA prosecution seems rather over the top and probably unlikely to succeed even if legal representation was poor but a Byelaw prosecution seems fairly open and shut.

Actually, a byelaw prosecution would be bound to fail if staff were advising passengers to join the train without a ticket.

The excess fares desks at Cardiff Queen Street use Avantix Mobile machines, though, right? They wouldn't have been able to sell a monthly season ticket either.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

For the record, she was stopped just a metre from the queue. The enforcement officer didn't say "you are not allowed to buy a ticket later to cover this journey," he didn't tell her to rejoin the queue, it is clear from her immediate response she doesn't realise what she is doing is against the law because of previous experiences and information provided to her by people of authority. Had the REO told her she was breaking the law by leaving the queue she would obviously have re-queued. Had the REO offered her the chance to buy the ticket in the queue and helped the single man in the ticket office do his job more efficiently then she would have obviously paid for the ticket there and then.

If ATW or whoever has authority to enforce this here didn't want to have the chance of people leaving the queue, why is the only place tickets can be purchases outside of the barriers, and in fact here it is currently outside of the station because of the redevelopment that is going on at Queen Street. Had the ticket seller been in the appropriate place (before the barrier) she would not have been able to break an antiquated law simply by leaving a queue as she would have had to explain that to a person of authority at the barrier, who should have told her she had no choice but to queue for an indeterminate amount of time. She did the same thing in this circumstance, but the person of authority instead of being helpful and explaining what needs to happen, issues a report to the train company who use a third party company or aggressively pursue the matter. In effect this feels like bribery on the part of TIL - basically "pay us an excessive settlement or we'll take you to court and you'll pay our fees plus a larger penalty."

All of that aside, she will make the relevant complaints about the whole farce after sorting out the threat of any legal action with TIL, and offer her suggestions for improvement to ATW (which I'm sure they will ignore).

What is the suggestion for sorting out TIL now? Phone? Letter? Speaking about a settlement? Speaking to citizens advice? As you can imagine the threat of legal action and a potential criminal record as well as the threat of undisclosed penalties or "admin fees" being levied is causing significant distress for my wife. She says she is being made to feel like she has committed a serious crime, to which no one has suffered any financial loss.

Thanks for your help

 

[Fare-Cop]

It has been ruled that the fare is due at the time of travel and not later, that is at the very latest when the traveller reaches their final railway destination if no earlier facilities have been available.

As DaveNewcastle has previously pointed out, in Corbyn (1978) the judgment defined the conditions which satisfy an "intent to avoid payment" where the traveller passed the open ticket Office. It was determined that there was no need to suggest that a permanent intention to avoid payment existed, just that there had been an opportunity to pay and that the traveller did not take that opportunity.

 

[transmanche]

I would agree with all that - right up until the person walked away from the queue to buy the ticket, thus demonstrating legal intent of avoiding the payment of a fare however unintended it might have been.

But how long can a person be expected to wait in such a situation? 15 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour? Three hours? At some point, even the most law-abiding of us will walk away.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

@island - you are correct, and for that reason the staff at Queen street (as well as on the train) specifically let you through the barriers to purchase the said monthly return ticket. It was on their advice that my wife went through the barriers. The staff on the train and the barriers were even the ones who suggested she would be better off buying monthly returns rather than the daily or weekly returns she was buying previously (4 years ago). The irony is had they not advised her this she wouldn't have known about them, would have continued buying daily/weekly tickets, and therefore wouldn't have ever been able to be let through the barriers without a ticket, thereby not becoming a "criminal"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
@transmarche, see my point about when the ticket office was shut for an hour when she returned to purchase that ticket. In that case she actually waited for the whole hour.......

Bear in mind this ticket office is outside of the barriers, and outside of the station. Would it not make sense for those REO to stand by the queue to make sure people don't leave it, or at least advise passengers? What happens when that ticket office is shut? What happens if the seller decides to go on a break? What happens if someone in the queue needs the toilet? What happens if there is a massive traffic accident outside and someone in the queue is a first aider and runs to help respond? If a person leaves that queue for any of these reasons are these crimes by that same logic? Surely that is the point of the use of discretion when enforcing them?

A quick and simple "I'm sorry but actually you need to stay in this queue because we don't accept that when you purchase the ticket later it doesn't cover this journey, despite what you have been told elsewhere," would have resolved the problem immediately, would it not? Being cynical here though, the "for profit" enforcement organisation TIL wouldn't be able to make their "admin fee" for emotionally blackmailing people into settling with them. I'd be interested to see whether ATW pays TIL fees for undertaking this work, or whether TIL offer to do it on the basis they can charge admin fees to make their money.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I also understand the argument they will use (she left the queue, and therefore that shows intent not to pay). However she also joined the queue, and queued - this was put in the witness statement. This shows clear intent TO pay, and is not subjective. It isn't as straightforward as passing an open ticket office, as the ticket office in this instance was not able to dispense of tickets in a timely manner (that part is subjective, I understand....)

In any case, a serious criminal my wife is not. Neither is she a petty thief. She had the opportunity at most to avoid paying a £2.30 fare, going on the logic that she could have walked home (although this is clearly not the case). She explained that she was under the understanding that the same ticket that she was buying later covers this journey based on being told that on several previous occasions by railway staff, and sold tickets on that very basis. This is the first time this has happened. She has a long history of buying this type of ticket. What I'm looking for is a resolution. Knowing the above points were stated in the initial letter to TIL (along with apologising for any misunderstanding and offering to cover costs etc) she still receives a letter threatening a court summons (reading between the lines, a "pay us an undisclosed admin fee of we'll take you to court, you criminal...."). TIL have therefore shown they are unreasonable, so I'm after advice on how to deal with them now.

 

[Flamingo]

We have established that Queen Street was the first place that the passenger could purchase the ticket they required, as monthly season tickets were not available from any of the outlets (theoretically) available to them, so as this is their regular journey they would have been well aware that Queen Street was the first option.

They did not pay for their journey, but attempted to leave without buying a ticket.

As this is their regular journey, how often in the past had they decided that queueing was something other people did, and walk out? If it's the normal (once a month) commute, the OP's wife would have known from previous experience that there would be a requirement to queue that day. It was hardly the first time there had been a queue at a busy city centre station.

Don't forget, the same barrier staff will be seeing the same people and observing their actions day in and day out.

ATW (or at least some of their managers) have finally woken up to the fact that millions of pounds a year are walking out the door from people who will never buy a ticket until challenged. They are manning barriers longer and have (sporadic) Revenue stings, some of which are intelligence led and aimed at certain individuals or stations that have specific problems.

It sounds like the OP's wife got caught up in one of these.

If the OP want's advice, I know a good criminal defence solicitor in South Wales who would probably be the best person to talk to. I'll PM the name if required...

 

[Mrcommonsense]

@flamingo. All else aside, assume the goal of the revenue sting is to increase fare payments, with a view to increasing revenue overall. What will ATW have achieved in this situation? They would have lost a regular customer who uses and pays for the train every day. They would have lost this customer because of the lack of common sense and discretion used by the REO.

People who deliberately attempt to avoid payment repeatedly will not be more likely to pay if they get caught. They will just stop travelling by train, or they will just try the same thing again and again on the basis that they might get away with it. No increased revenue for ATW here. Innocent people who in effect are misled by people of authority who get caught up in this initiative (like my wife) - are they more likely to pay for their fares in the future? Did they always pay for their fares? There is no opportunity for increased revenue for ATW here. In fact, through significant failings of common sense and discretion there is only an opportunity for lost revenue. How do you think this information will be passed by her to other potential customers (her friends/family/social media). I can tell you it won't be in a good light. Negative PR for ATW.

Just as an example, if my wife got a telling off and made to pay the fare there and then, she would still be using the train.

In terms of a lawyer - are you suggesting that is necessary in this case? I don't particularly want to be chucking money at something to defend against something so trivial. I'm not sure how that process would work in this case though so please feel free to pm me their details and I can at least ask them.

Many thanks

 

[Flamingo]

If it goes to court (which is where it appears to heading) then a solicitor is always a good idea.

As regards the rest of your arguments, I'm afraid I've heard them all before, let's agree to differ. My view is that if passengers are not paying, if they stop using us when they are made pay then they leave more room and greater comfort for those who do pay.

 

[cuccir]

In terms of a lawyer - are you suggesting that is necessary in this case? I don't particularly want to be chucking money at something to defend against something so trivial. I'm not sure how that process would work in this case though so please feel free to pm me their details and I can at least ask them.

It depends on your desired outcome. There are, as far as I can see, two sensible actions with the following possible outcomes:

1. Respond with a statement reaffirming your wife's experience and a belief that no offence occured. Submit with it a cheque for £2.30 to cover the journey. Simultaneously launch your complaint with Arriva Train Wales about ticket buying.
1a. This is all accepted by both bodies. Issue resolved, possibly with apologies and compensation.
1b. TIL/ATW do not accept the story. They proceed for a Byelaw prosecution.
1c. TIL/ATW do not accept the story. They proceed for a Regulation of the Railways prosecution.

2. Respond with a statement roughly similar to that you posted originally to this forum, but which apologises and says that your wife now realises that she should have purchased the ticket at Queen Street station immediately, but points out that your wife is a regular customer, and offers to pay the fare plus reasonable admin costs. Simultaneously launch your complaint with Arriva Train Wales about ticket buying.
2a. This is all accepted by both bodies. Issue resolved with a payment of roughly £100. Possible resolution of ticketing problem.
2b. TIL/ATW do not accept the story. They proceed for a Byelaw prosecution.
2c. TIL/ATW do not accept the story. They proceed for a Regulation of the Railways prosecution.

In my view, if you take option 2, outcome 2a remains highly likely and prosecution is unlikely. This is why people settle out of court - it's a risk mitigation exercise, which avoids the possible extremely negative outcomes of prosecution. To be honest, it seems like option 1a has already been rejected, but you might still get this (especially if you state an intention for your wife to defend herself with a solicitor in court).

In both (b) scenarios, the worse that your wife faces is a possible fine, likely to be no more than £200-£300 (and possibly much less). There would be no criminal record. Given the cost of a solicitor, I'd recommend conducting your own defence, basing it on the inability to buy a ticket during the journey, and the passenger charter of Arriva Trains Wales which states "Sufficient staff will be employed in ticket offices so that you do not have to wait for more than five minutes at peak times and three minutes at other times." If you want to follow this approach, collect as much other evidence as possible (eg of broken ticket machine, overcrowding).

In both (c) scenarios, the worse that your wife faces is a higher fine - still in the hundreds though - and a criminal record. Here, if you wanted to defend yourself, I would recommend a solicitor. He or she would advise you on the best defence.

In all cases, I'd not be keen to offer anything stronger than a forum-readers' expertise in the likelihood of any particular outcome - and this is important to note when reading my assessment above.
--
Edit:
I should note one further option, which could be explored alongside any of the others. It's always possible to escalate via media, or by letters to chief executives, customer services managers, MPs etc. With this right story, you can often get powerful people supporting you. I don't like the morality of this - it involves telling half-truths, making exaggerations, and exploiting uninformed opinions - but it can often unfortunately work.