Help with unpaid fare dispute

[Mrcommonsense]

And the innocent people who have always paid who can no longer use the trains through fear of prosecution over such triviality and negative PR associated with such are just collateral damage in it all........ Seems reasonable......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
@cuccir, thanks very helpful

I have told my wife to phone TIL today to see whether she needs to write to them to suggest a settlement or not, and to get an idea of what figure that might be. She'll follow it up in writing in any case and complain to the appropriate channels.

She would have queued for more than 5 minutes for sure. The train was late, the station was overcrowded, she left the queue based on what appears to be false information given to her by railway staff about the validity of the ticket she purchases. She waited 1 hour to buy that ticket later in the day as the seller was "on a break." Her service is frequently cancelled and she is made to take (and pay for) a replacement bus which takes significantly longer for the same journey. The service is frequently late and understaffed. Things like this just underline the problems ATW is facing and it does not surprise me they are suffering financially.

Honestly, if this proceeds to court then I don't know what the world is coming to. Members of my family have been mugged at knifepoint and gunpoint and the punishments handed out to those criminals were less than the potential punishment here. I fail to see how the severity of the alleged crime here matches the size of the proposed punishment.

 

[mikeg]

She would have queued for more than 5 minutes for sure. The train was late, the station was overcrowded, she left the queue based on what appears to be false information given to her by railway staff about the validity of the ticket she purchases. She waited 1 hour to buy that ticket later in the day as the seller was "on a break." Her service is frequently cancelled and she is made to take (and pay for) a replacement bus which takes significantly longer for the same journey. The service is frequently late and understaffed. Things like this just underline the problems ATW is facing and it does not surprise me they are suffering financially.

Honestly, if this proceeds to court then I don't know what the world is coming to. Members of my family have been mugged at knifepoint and gunpoint and the punishments handed out to those criminals were less than the potential punishment here. I fail to see how the severity of the alleged crime here matches the size of the proposed punishment.

I agree that this is not an acceptable state of affairs and that a complaint should be taken up, however it is not up to her to decide not to pay just because of a queue. Like it or not, this is the law, we can't just use a service and decide not to pay for it if we don't like it, there are ways and means of complaining. The fact your wife has continued to use the railway suggests either things aren't that bad or there is no alternative. If the latter, I can understand her frustration. Traveline seems to show that there are buses in roughly the same areas, so I suggest the former is in fact the case. Not that I'm defending long queues or broken ticket machines in any way, and I still suggest writing a letter of complaint. But you have to see it from their perspective, no matter how hard that may be, and more importantly the black-and-white perspective of the law.

The last point would appear to be nonsense. I have witnessed many cases sitting in the gallery (my housemate at University was a law student and we would regularly go to the court galleries) and not once have I seen an armed robber or mugger get away with a small-medium fine (though admittedly I tend to go to the magistrates court, rather than the crown court so haven't seen many - they're always sent up to the crown court, another thing that won't happen to your wife). In the case of gunpoint, so much as owning an illegal firearm carries a minimum sentence of five years imprisonment last time I checked, so once again this is doubtful. If you're referring to the potential 3 months imprisonment under the Regulation of Railways act 1889, it doesn't apply to the first offence, I believe thanks to judicial precedent (though could be wrong on this reason). The reason railway law is so harsh is because of the low chance of the crime being detected. If the punishment was simply a small penalty fare, people would chance it as it would pay to pay the odd penalty rather than pay for their fares each time. If the detection methods were stepped up, we may have to pay for the hiring of additional staff through our tickets. I don't mean to say that it's entirely fair and sometimes harsh deterrent doesn't work as people don't realise it's there but that would be the most likely reason.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

@mikeg

She paid for the service. She was given information by railway staff that the purchase of a monthly return ticket covers the cost of that journey. She was given that information by numerous staff on numerous occasions. She didn't decide to "not pay for the journey" she decided that given the fact she was not able to buy a ticket at that time without queuing for an indeterminate amount of time she would use the knowledge that she had obtained from railway staff and purchase the ticket to cover the cost at the next available opportunity, which she then did.

The point is the lack of understanding or discretion. The point is the fact that the follow up letters from TIL are completely contradicting the advice that was given by the REO who took the report. The point is that they appear to contradict ATWs guidance on this type of incident. Their own guidance states this is not designed to punish people who make an innocent mistake. This clearly meets those criteria. Their own guidance states that first offences of such a nature will be met by a request for payment of the fare plus reasonable expenses (and that was expressed to TIL in the first reply to them). Yet they still seem intent on taking this further.

The intent seems to recover money they are losing through fines, rather than by using the fines as a method to change people's behaviour. I understand about the size of penalty etc, but the size of punishment should also make reference to the severity of the crime committed (if any).

As I've said previously I can't see that the current unreasonable actions of TIL are likely to change, so I was just looking for advice on how to deal with them, rather than argue whether she broke the law or not, and whether it warrants prosecution or not. I do see from their perspective in terms of following procedures, but I also understand that following procedures blindly doesn't always achieve the intended objective.

 

[Greenback]

In order to avoid this situation should your wife continue or revert to rail use in future, please be aware that although monthly and longer tickets cannot be purchased on the train, they can be renewed in advance at ticket offices and online.

Many passengers prefer to buy their next season ticket before travelling home on the final day of validity. Tickets starting on a Monday (or a Tuesday following a bank holiday) can be renewed in preson from the previous Friday afternoon onwards. I am surprised that your wife has not been advised of this previously, as it may be more convenient than waiting on a Mondya morning at what was, when I was last there, a cramped, temporary ticket office due tot he work going on at Queen Street.

It may also be worth mentioning that season tickets cna be issued for 7 days, one month, and then any duration up to one year. They do not have to be for a calendar month, which could work out cheaper when accounting for holidays and so on.

If you do intend to fight this, or to make a complaint about ticket buying facilities, I'm certain the information I've provided will form part of any response. Ultimately, it is the passengers responsibility to purchase a ticket at the first opportunity. Your wife was given the opportunity to do this on arrival at Queen Street, but then walked away, and I agree that this is the cause of the issue. It may seem unfair, but that's the way the law is, I'm afraid.

 

[jon0844]

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.

What if you saw the huge queue, was still on railway property, and decided to leave the queue to go to the toilet or grab a drink/snack from a shop or vending machine - then come back?

At what point is the offence committed? Wouldn't it be when leaving the station property?

Surely the RPI could only act once it was quite clear and obvious that someone was leaving without having paid, not just moving out of the queue.

I'm not saying that there wasn't intent in this case though, as there was an admission that the plan was to buy a ticket later on in the day, but I still wonder if that conversation should have even taken place when it did - and not when outside.

 

[Greenback]

@mikeg

If you want to reply to someone's comments, please use the 'QUOTE' button,. This will then allow everyone to see what the original points were without having to scroll up and down the thread!

She paid for the service. She was given information by railway staff that the purchase of a monthly return ticket covers the cost of that journey. She was given that information by numerous staff on numerous occasions. She didn't decide to "not pay for the journey" she decided that given the fact she was not able to buy a ticket at that time without queuing for an indeterminate amount of time she would use the knowledge that she had obtained from railway staff and purchase the ticket to cover the cost at the next available opportunity, which she then did.

I personally agree that a monthly or longer season purchased just after the incoming journey covers that journey. There may be a technical argumant to say that it only becomes valid at the point and time of purchase, but there is very little information on the ticket to indicate when that was.

To all intents and purposes, it is accepted by a lot of railway staff, day in, day out, that it's fine for soemone who wants to buy a monthly ticket can be told to buy one at the ticket office at their arrival station, assuming there is one. If there isn't, I've seen staff sell a weekly instead.

In all instances I have seen, staff have explained that there are other means of buying a longer durations eason ticket, such as in advance.

However, all that is a bit irrelevant, since the main point here is that intent has been demonstrated by leaving the ticket office. Rail staff have no way of knowing if someone is going to return later, or not.

@The point is the lack of understanding or discretion. The point is the fact that the follow up letters from TIL are completely contradicting the advice that was given by the REO who took the report. The point is that they appear to contradict ATWs guidance on this type of incident. Their own guidance states this is not designed to punish people who make an innocent mistake. This clearly meets those criteria. Their own guidance states that first offences of such a nature will be met by a request for payment of the fare plus reasonable expenses (and that was expressed to TIL in the first reply to them). Yet they still seem intent on taking this further.

Guidance is exactly that, guidance. Each case is considered on its own merits, albeit in conjunction with guidance and policy.

In this instance, we do not know for sure that proseution will follow. An offer to settle may well succeed. An explanation of what happened in line with your opening post may also lead to the matter being dropped, though my own view is that the chance of that is quite low.

@The intent seems to recover money they are losing through fines, rather than by using the fines as a method to change people's behaviour. I understand about the size of penalty etc, but the size of punishment should also make reference to the severity of the crime committed (if any).

This, of course, is a matter for the courts, who also have guidelines to follow, as only a court can issue a fine.

An out of court settlement is merely an offer to deal with the matter in an administrative rather than a judicial way, and it may be posisble to enter into negotiations as to the exact amount that would be acceptable.

@As I've said previously I can't see that the current unreasonable actions of TIL are likely to change, so I was just looking for advice on how to deal with them, rather than argue whether she broke the law or not, and whether it warrants prosecution or not. I do see from their perspective in terms of following procedures, but I also understand that following procedures blindly doesn't always achieve the intended objective.

You've already had excellent advice on your options from other posters. At the moment it's not known how they will proceed. I know it's difficult but all you can do now is to draft an appropriate response in view of the advice you've received and what you want to do, then wait and see what happens.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What if you saw the huge queue, was still on railway property, and decided to leave the queue to go to the toilet or grab a drink/snack from a shop or vending machine - then come back?

Well, if I was desperate to go to the toilet I would explain that to the member of staff. I doubt I would have to leave a queue for a drink or a snack, but I accept that there may be a medical need to do so for some people, in which case an explanation would also be a good idea.

I suspect that in this instance, the lady simply said she was going to work and will come back later.

At what point is the offence committed? Wouldn't it be when leaving the station property?

Surely the RPI could only act once it was quite clear and obvious that someone was leaving without having paid, not just moving out of the queue.

The situation at Queen Street is (or definitely was on my last visit) that the temproary portakabin containing the ticket office is actually outside of the sattion on the footway by a pedestrian crossing. I amke no comment on the legal position due to lack of knowledge!

I'm not saying that there wasn't intent in this case though, as there was an admission that the plan was to buy a ticket later on in the day, but I still wonder if that conversation should have even taken place when it did - and not when outside.

In my view, in the circumstances, the officer was entitled to have the conversation once the passenger emerged from the ticket cabin without a ticket.

 

[jon0844]

Ah, if it's outside the station then it does 'change everything'.

 

[Greenback]

Ah, if it's outside the station then it does 'change everything'.

Yes, but I haven't been there for a couple of months so I'm conscious it may have changed with the ongoing work.

I am, therefore, trying to avoid definite statements!

 

[Mrcommonsense]

Yes the ticket booth is outside the station because of the works being carried out there.

Thanks for the advice so far from everyone.

The thing that bothers me is the fact there needed to be any "admin costs" at all that would form part of the cost of settling out of court. Or the fact something so trivial would even go to court. I'm guessing TIL are a "for-profit" company. Therefore I'm guessing the fact that something so trivial has proceeded in such a ridiculous manner is due to the needs of the TIL shareholders. It would be interesting to see whether TIL was paid a fee by ATW for carrying out this work, or whether there is an agreement that TIL can make it's profit through effectively forcing people into "administrative settlements." Maybe that is just me being a cynic.

 

[Flamingo]

You seem to be missing the point. Fare Evasion is not trivial, as you seem to think. It is a criminal offence, has been for over 150 years, and it costs taxpayers hundreds of millions in lost revenue every year. Your wife is not an innocent party, she was caught not paying for her journey. The unpalitable truth to you is she was caught fare evading, all the post-hoc justifications you are bringing up are irrevelant in this case.

I'm afraid you are about to have an expensive lesson in how wrong you are to think this is a trivial matter, and if writing to ATW to ask for leniency in dealing with it, I would advise you to (putting it bluntly) drop the attitude. They hold all the aces.

 

[island]

Yes the ticket booth is outside the station because of the works being carried out there.

Thanks for the advice so far from everyone.

The thing that bothers me is the fact there needed to be any "admin costs" at all that would form part of the cost of settling out of court. Or the fact something so trivial would even go to court. I'm guessing TIL are a "for-profit" company. Therefore I'm guessing the fact that something so trivial has proceeded in such a ridiculous manner is due to the needs of the TIL shareholders. It would be interesting to see whether TIL was paid a fee by ATW for carrying out this work, or whether there is an agreement that TIL can make it's profit through effectively forcing people into "administrative settlements." Maybe that is just me being a cynic.

I think it is. As far as I am aware TIL and similar organizations are paid per case they deal with irrespective of the outcome of the case. I also agree with Flamingo's suggestion not to muddy the waters with comments like this in any contact with ATW or its representatives. You are looking for them to do you a favour, and casting aspersions will make them less inclined to.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

Flamingo You seem to be missing the point. Fare Evasion is not trivial, as you seem to think. It is a criminal offence, has been for over 150 years, and it costs taxpayers hundreds of millions in lost revenue every year. Your wife is not an innocent party, she was caught not paying for her journey. The unpalitable truth to you is she was caught fare evading, all the post-hoc justifications you are bringing up are irrevelant in this case.

I'm afraid you are about to have an expensive lesson in how wrong you are to think this is a trivial matter, and if writing to ATW to ask for leniency in dealing with it, I would advise you to (putting it bluntly) drop the attitude. They hold all the aces.

I am not planning on using these as you say "excuses" to justify anything in any letter to TIL, or asking for leniency. What I was asking was whether procedure had been followed correctly and how to deal with TIL now. My comments about TIL in general are my opinion. I understand they hold all the aces. I was merely stating my opinion on that.

The evasion of any fare here is only a technicality - no fare was actually evaded. Labelling someone a criminal because of them acting on information provided by figures of authority within a company is nonsense. My wife was not caught not paying for her journey. She was caught not paying for her journey at that time because it was not practical - and although I can see that the legal definition of intent in this case will say she broke the law and skipped the fare, that is obviously not the case as she explained to the REO at the time. She didn't have intent in any other sense of the word to not pay for the fare.

My wife didn't contribute to the hundreds of millions of lost revenue you refer to.

 

[island]

ILabelling someone a criminal because of them acting on information provided by figures of authority within a company is nonsense. My wife was not caught not paying for her journey. She was caught not paying for her journey at that time because it was not practical - and although I can see that the legal definition of intent in this case will say she broke the law and skipped the fare, that is obviously not the case as she explained to the REO at the time.

As has been explained to you, case law states that the fare is due at the time of travel and not later. Your wife chose not to pay at the time of travel. Saying it "was not practical" is, I'm afraid, not a true statement, and even if it were, would not appear to be a sufficient excuse. It was completely possible, but she did not wish to queue for the prerequisite level of time.

Thinking of it from ATW's point of view, how were they to know that she was going home by train that afternoon and would buy a season ticket then?

 

[Greenback]

The evasion of any fare here is only a technicality - no fare was actually evaded. Labelling someone a criminal because of them acting on information provided by figures of authority within a company is nonsense. My wife was not caught not paying for her journey.

The figures of authority could not sell the ticket your wife wanted, so in the interests of good customer service allowed her to buy at her destination. They could have justifiably insisted on only selling a weekly ticket and informing her of the other means by which she could purchase a longer duration season ticket in the future.

It is a shame that such good intentions led to your wife becoming involved in this incident. But the fact is that she was not instructed by anyone in authority to not buy a ticket at that time and to come back later.

I'm sure that ATW will be keen for their staff to not be so helpful to passengers in the future, not to exercise any discretion and to stick rigidly to the rules and regulations in future. After all, if they had none of this would have happened.

You do need to accept that the only real issue here is that your wife decided to leave the ticket office before she could buy her ticket. I realise that she had no idea of the potential consequences of doing so, but ignorance of the law has long been held not to be a defence.

I'm afraid that you are under a misconception, as at the point your wife left the ticket office without a ticket, having been instructed to buy one on arrival, she was guilty of not paying for her journey, despite your opinion to the contrary.

 

[transmanche]

Thinking of it from ATW's point of view, how were they to know that she was going home by train that afternoon and would buy a season ticket then?

A pattern of purchasing monthly season tickets might help to demonstrate that she would buy a season ticket to make the return journey.

 

[Greenback]

It may not if there are gaps, which could be entirely due to genuine reasons such as days off between tickets, illness or the like.

I think that attempting to go down that road would not be wise, as it does not really help the fact that staff told the passenger to buy on arrival at the destination, not wander off and come back at her leisure some other time.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

As has been explained to you, case law states that the fare is due at the time of travel and not later. Your wife chose not to pay at the time of travel. Saying it "was not practical" is, I'm afraid, not a true statement, and even if it were, would not appear to be a sufficient excuse. It was completely possible, but she did not wish to queue for the prerequisite level of time.

Thinking of it from ATW's point of view, how were they to know that she was going home by train that afternoon and would buy a season ticket then?

Not getting into an argument about semantics here, but "it was not practical" is a true statement, it is just a subjective one.

I am not trying to imply that saying "it was not practical" was a sufficient excuse though. What I am saying is that, like most other people, my wife has never read the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, and the relevant Byelaws are not amongst her bedtime reading choices. She knows what is right and wrong in general. She was acting on information given to her that a monthly return ticket covers the cost of the morning journey, given to her by railway staff. It is her interpretation, and from what you are saying this is what has caused her to "break the law." Please don't take that as me trying to argue this by ignorance. I am merely explaining why she made that decision at that time. Had she known the law, would she have made that decision? Obviously not.

It is trivial because she had intention of paying. It is trivial because the REO could have told her the law at that point and asked her to re-queue. It is trivial because the amount of money she could have got away with not paying, if that was her intention (which it wasn't, forget what the law classifies as intention for a minute), was £2.30. History of actions shows she has never skipped a fare. For something that could have been sorted out there and then and not wasted everyone's time and allowed third party companies to incur "admin costs" that they would then seek to recover I feel I am being fair in my assessment of the matter using common sense. Forget what the law says - I can see everyone's points here. I am merely commenting based on my opinion.

No bother though - seeing as she is not forced to use the train she will not use it in future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sure that ATW will be keen for their staff to not be so helpful to passengers in the future, not to exercise any discretion and to stick rigidly to the rules and regulations in future. After all, if they had none of this would have happened.
QUOTE]

Yes that is correct, but that also creates a much worse society of the "computer says no" mentality. Discretion is one of the key things that humans have that cannot be replicated by rules. People should be given opportunity to use it where it would have a net benefit. Regardless of what anyone thinks here, prosecution on this case alone will only have a negative outcome for ATW in terms of revenue.

 

[Greenback]

Not getting into an argument about semantics here, but "it was not practical" is a true statement, it is just a subjective one.

I am not trying to imply that saying "it was not practical" was a sufficient excuse though. What I am saying is that, like most other people, my wife has never read the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, and the relevant Byelaws are not amongst her bedtime reading choices. She knows what is right and wrong in general. She was acting on information given to her that a monthly return ticket covers the cost of the morning journey, given to her by railway staff. It is her interpretation, and from what you are saying this is what has caused her to "break the law."

That is not the central issue. The issue is that she did not follow the instruction to buy on arrival at the destination. The fact that staff allowed her to travel was conditional on this happening.

No bother though - seeing as she is not forced to use the train she will not use it in future.

That is, of course, entirely her choice. I've provided info that will assist in avoiding this situation again, and I still can't grasp why she hasn't been informed of these by rail staff previously, or investigated these options herself.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

That is, of course, entirely her choice. I've provided info that will assist in avoiding this situation again, and I still can't grasp why she hasn't been informed of these by rail staff previously, or investigated these options herself.

Thank you for that. I am unsure as to why that information wasn't provided to her in the past also. Similarly, I am unsure as to why she was provided with information (that a monthly return ticket purchased from Queen Street) covers the journey from Waun Gron Park in the morning. She was sold that very ticket on that basis when she specifically told the seller she wanted her monthly ticket to include the morning journey when she returned to purchase it later that day. There seems to be quite a bit of ambiguity there based on people on this thread saying that ticket can't include the morning journey, yet train staff saying it does.

I am also unsure as to why she was lied to/mis-informed by the REO with regards to what would happen next in these circumstances.

If she can't trust the information she is given by railway staff she cannot take the risk of using the railway.

 

[Greenback]

Thank you for that. I am unsure as to why that information wasn't provided to her in the past also. Similarly, I am unsure as to why she was provided with information (that a monthly return ticket purchased from Queen Street) covers the journey from Waun Gron Park in the morning. She was sold that very ticket on that basis when she specifically told the seller she wanted her monthly ticket to include the morning journey when she returned to purchase it later that day. There seems to be quite a bit of ambiguity there based on people on this thread saying that ticket can't include the morning journey, yet train staff saying it does.

I am also unsure as to why she was lied to/mis-informed by the REO with regards to what would happen next in these circumstances.

If she can't trust the information she is given by railway staff she cannot take the risk of using the railway.

As I said previously, I don't agree that buying a monthly ticket at the conclusion of a journey does not cover that journey.

But that is not really the issue. The issue is that your wife did not pay for her journey (by way of a monthly season or otherwise) at the first available opportunity. That is all that this boils down to in the end.

As for the information provided by rail staff, without being witness to the various conversations and what was said it's impossible to know for sure, but it's probable that one of the following has happened.

A member of staff has explained things badly
A member of staff has explained things properly and been misunderstood
A member of staff has acidentally provided incorrect information
A member of staff has deliberately provided incorrect information
Your wife has not remembered the exact details of a conversation correctly
Your wife asked the wrong question (!)

I am not going to comment on the various probabilities, but whichever one of these is correct (and it could be more than one if there have been multiple conversations with different staff about monthly season tickets), as in my view it is pretty irrelevant now, and this forum can hopefully assist with clarifying the true position for future reference.

The only thing I will say is that if your wife suspected that she ever received conflicting information from different staff that should have acted as a bit of a warning light, and alerted her to the possibility of finding herself in some sort of trouble one day. Had this happened, I'm sure she would have sought to get the official position directly from the rail company.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

As I said previously, I don't agree that buying a monthly ticket at the conclusion of a journey does not cover that journey.

But that is not really the issue. The issue is that your wife did not pay for her journey (by way of a monthly season or otherwise) at the first available opportunity. That is all that this boils down to in the end.

As for the information provided by rail staff, without being witness to the various conversations and what was said it's impossible to know for sure, but it's probable that one of the following has happened.

A member of staff has explained things badly
A member of staff has explained things properly and been misunderstood
A member of staff has acidentally provided incorrect information
A member of staff has deliberately provided incorrect information
Your wife has not remembered the exact details of a conversation correctly
Your wife asked the wrong question (!)

I am not going to comment on the various probabilities, but whichever one of these is correct (and it could be more than one if there have been multiple conversations with different staff about monthly season tickets), as in my view it is pretty irrelevant now, and this forum can hopefully assist with clarifying the true position for future reference.

The only thing I will say is that if your wife suspected that she ever received conflicting information from different staff that should have acted as a bit of a warning light, and alerted her to the possibility of finding herself in some sort of trouble one day. Had this happened, I'm sure she would have sought to get the official position directly from the rail company.

My wife would have paid for her ticket at the first available opportunity had she been told by the REO that what she was doing wasn't actually allowed, contradicting advise she had previously been given. At the point of the railway officer stopping her, had he told her the rules she would have paid/returned to the queue. Problem solved. Yet in this instance the rational thing to do is for him to take her away from the queue, take a statement, agree with her that her ticket would cover the journey, tell her no further action would be taken, and then pass it onto a firm that decides it needs some profit so will try to prosecute, who act completely differently to how has been advised by that REO?

And all of that seem to contradict ATW guidelines? Anyway, that is just my opinion, ATW and TIL will make their own decisions, rightly or wrongly.

Can I just ask one final question - in the letter to TIL now, is it better to say "whilst I do not believe I have committed an offence I really do not want this to go to court, so I am happy to offer payment of the fare (if you decide the monthly return ticket attached does not cover the journey in question), plus reasonable admin expenditure as a compromise settlement" - or is it better to accept that their interpretation that she has broken a law, something like "I accept your interpretation and wish to offer a compromise settlement"

I'm conscious that the latter would be interpreted as admitting guilt, which could mean they are more likely to pursue? Any thoughts on this.

 

[MichaelAMW]

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.

I am sorry, Flamingo, but in the face of an awful lot of interesting, expert and sensible things that you post, that is a unpleasant and insensitive remark that instantly angered me. The lady in question has not been not paying. Irrespective of the technicalities of leaving the queue and whether a season with exactly the same number of days validity bought a few hours later amounts to the same thing as the one she would have obtained had she waited, she has not been "made to pay" - she was paying all along and continued to do so.

I appreciate that she is in a tight spot but surely there's a place for a bit of sensitivity and humanity along with the advice as to what the law means here?

 

[Greenback]

My wife would have paid for her ticket at the first available opportunity had she been told by the REO that what she was doing wasn't actually allowed, contradicting advise she had previously been given.

I may have missed something here. Had your wife been told it was OK not to buy on arrival at her destination and to buy at some other point in the future?

As far as I can tell, she has always been told to buy at Queen St when the train arrives as that is her destination. She was also allowed through the barriers there on the udnerstanding that she would buy her ticket at the ticket office outside straight away, not at some unspecified later point in time?

At the point of the railway officer stopping her, had he told her the rules she would have paid/returned to the queue. Problem solved. Yet in this instance the rational thing to do is for him to take her away from the queue, take a statement, agree with her that her ticket would cover the journey, tell her no further action would be taken, and then pass it onto a firm that decides it needs some profit so will try to prosecute, who act completely differently to how has been advised by that REO?

At some point railway staff have to make ha decision on whether to offer advice or to report the behaviour of a passenger for further consideration by a senior person. It may not be the action that I would have taken, I don't know as I wasn't there. Similarly we don't know why they said that no action would be taken, though in my experience I would say it's better not to make such declarations unless you are the person who will make that decision, otherwise you are just trying to second guess what someone else will do.

And all of that seem to contradict ATW guidelines? Anyway, that is just my opinion, ATW and TIL will make their own decisions, rightly or wrongly.

You are quit eentitled to your opinion, although in my view some of the reasons for holding that opinion are not actually relevant to the facts, or are merely assumptions at this stage.

Can I just ask one final question - in the letter to TIL now, is it better to say "whilst I do not believe I have committed an offence I really do not want this to go to court, so I am happy to offer payment of the fare (if you decide the monthly return ticket attached does not cover the journey in question), plus reasonable admin expenditure as a compromise settlement" - or is it better to accept that their interpretation that she has broken a law, something like "I accept your interpretation and wish to offer a compromise settlement"

I'm conscious that the latter would be interpreted as admitting guilt, which could mean they are more likely to pursue? Any thoughts on this.

In my opinion, it is better to admit to making a mistake in leaving the queue, say that your wife did not realise the implications of doing so and that she has learnt from this and will ensure that it does not happen again. It may be useful to say that she has now become aware of alternative ways to get a monthly season, which will help to ensure that she does not have to travel without being in possession of a valid ticket again.

I would then offer a sincere apology for causing the company any trouble, and ask whether, in the cirumstances, they could see their way to disposing of the matter at their earliest convenience without recourse to the courts.

In this way your wife would be acknowledging her mistake but not admitting to anything else, and elave the decision as to how to bring the matter to a conclusion to the judgement of the company. It may be that they drop the matter without payment, or they may reply with an offer of an amount they would be prepared to accept in settlement.

I do think it is better to bite the bullet, accept the possibility of what you may personally consider an injustice, learn form this and move on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am sorry, Flamingo, but in the face of an awful lot of interesting, expert and sensible things that you post, that is a unpleasant and insensitive remark that instantly angered me. The lady in question has not been not paying. Irrespective of the technicalities of leaving the queue and whether a season with exactly the same number of days validity bought a few hours later amounts to the same thing as the one she would have obtained had she waited, she has not been "made to pay" - she was paying all along and continued to do so.

I appreciate that she is in a tight spot but surely there's a place for a bit of sensitivity and humanity along with the advice as to what the law means here?

Michael, I consider that Flamingo is merely reflecting the view of the TOC when faced with an argument along the lines 'I/we/they will stop using the train because of this'.

I do agree, however, that the passenger appears to have paid up until now, and had no intention of not paying on that day, they were simply unaware that walking away from the ticket office demonstrated intent to avoid paying for the journey.

 

[Mrcommonsense]

In my opinion, it is better to admit to making a mistake in leaving the queue, say that your wife did not realise the implications of doing so and that she has learnt from this and will ensure that it does not happen again. It may be useful to say that she has now become aware of alternative ways to get a monthly season, which will help to ensure that she does not have to travel without being in possession of a valid ticket again.

I would then offer a sincere apology for causing the company any trouble, and ask whether, in the cirumstances, they could see their way to disposing of the matter at their earliest convenience without recourse to the courts.

In this way your wife would be acknowledging her mistake but not admitting to anything else, and elave the decision as to how to bring the matter to a conclusion to the judgement of the company. It may be that they drop the matter without payment, or they may reply with an offer of an amount they would be prepared to accept in settlement.

I do think it is better to bite the bullet, accept the possibility of what you may personally consider an injustice, learn form this and move on.

Thanks for that. I accept that it is better to bite the bullet at this point based on the info provided. I wasn't suggesting using my arguments against them for TIL to just stonewall those arguments with "you broke the law," which is probably what they will say. I was trying to see whether the circumstances of this case meant that any response other than "sorry, take some of my money" was warranted, based on the law/interpretation of it.

The annoyance is down to the stress this has caused my wife in the way the whole thing has been handled, which just appears to be a massive waste of everyone's time. She spoke to TIL today by phone and they basically said something along the lines of "grovel to us and we'll see what we can do - we'll decide what admin charges we want to recover at that point."

We'll send the complaints about ATW and TIL after the case is closed, although I doubt it will result in any improvements to their service (for example, fixing the ticket machines, employing more staff to sell tickets to reduce queue times, rather than employing staff to prosecute people who can't get a ticket because of the queues or they'll end up getting sacked for being late to work)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Michael, I consider that Flamingo is merely reflecting the view of the TOC when faced with an argument along the lines 'I/we/they will stop using the train because of this'.

Fair enough but I'm sure that argument is more prevalent from people who never paid in the first place. In this instance it will actually result in the loss of revenue for ATW, and whichever way you look at it that is the exact opposite of their intention when carrying out this process.

I do agree, however, that the passenger appears to have paid up until now, and had no intention of not paying on that day, they were simply unaware that walking away from the ticket office demonstrated intent to avoid paying for the journey.

Exactly this.

 

[Greenback]

Thanks for that. I accept that it is better to bite the bullet at this point based on the info provided. I wasn't suggesting using my arguments against them for TIL to just stonewall those arguments with "you broke the law," which is probably what they will say. I was trying to see whether the circumstances of this case meant that any response other than "sorry, take some of my money" was warranted, based on the law/interpretation of it.

Yes, it's best to be pragmatic, put aside any personal feelings of outrage and try and mitigate the situation as best you can.

The annoyance is down to the stress this has caused my wife in the way the whole thing has been handled, which just appears to be a massive waste of everyone's time. She spoke to TIL today by phone and they basically said something along the lines of "grovel to us and we'll see what we can do - we'll decide what admin charges we want to recover at that point."

In essence, though with different use of language, that is the basis of my advice too!

I'll admit to having made mistakes in the past. These were not railway related (though I have accidentally thrown tickets away and had to buy new ones at great expense) but they certainly caused me a great deal of stress and angst in getting them resolved, particularly when I had to realise that I had inadvertently got things wrong and had to learn an expensive lesson (an incident at customs springs to mind...)

So I do understand the effect that this will have had on both of you.

We'll send the complaints about ATW and TIL after the case is closed, although I doubt it will result in any improvements to their service (for example, fixing the ticket machines, employing more staff to sell tickets to reduce queue times, rather than employing staff to prosecute people who can't get a ticket because of the queues or they'll end up getting sacked for being late to work)

This is a bit off topic, but some of the problems could be out of ATW's hands. Maybe the TVM is being regularly vandalised, so that, in effect as soon as it is repaired it is out of action again.

Certtainly, I believe that some of the problems at Queen St are a result of the improvement works.

And passengers need to help, too. Far too many of them, in the Valleys area particularly, will only pay if challenged at a manual barrier such as those at Cathays, or if the conudctor can get through to them on a crowded train. That doesn't apply to your wife, of course, but it's one of the reasons ATW have seen fit to take a harder line with people who don't make an effort to pay where there are facilities available (and that includes online purchases or renewing in advance!)

I hope you can come to a successful and acceptable resolution and that your wife will continue to travel by train if she wants to, perhaps by buying a longer duration season and renewing it before it expires. She will then be able to travel in confidence!

 

[Mrcommonsense]

This is a bit off topic, but some of the problems could be out of ATW's hands. Maybe the TVM is being regularly vandalised, so that, in effect as soon as it is repaired it is out of action again.

CCTV? Maybe spend the money and effort chasing/prosecuting the vandals? If the REO was at the departure station they could ensure customers bought tickets before boarding the train, which in an ideal world is what my wife would have bought the ticket there.

Seems to me that rationale is based on "well it is hard to catch the vandals, so we won't bother, but it is easy to catch people who make innocent mistakes at a station, so let's put our resources there instead and catch them out! And we'll even make some profit off the back of it! We'd make nothing from the vandals. Shareholders will be mighty impressed with us!"

 

[Darandio]

but it is easy to catch people who make innocent mistakes at a station

I notice this thread has gone round in the same circles many times over now, and there seems to be some sort of denial of any wrongdoing, however....

There was no innocent mistake made here, that isn't what the problem is. It's been explained enough times already and the blame game won't work with this one.

 

[Flamingo]

I work South Wales trains. On days/times there are no barriers, the number of passengers who walk past open ticket offices, let alone TVM's are huge. The majority of them will pay on the train - when challenged. If not directly asked for a ticket (as opposed to just seeing the guard walking through the carriage asking "Anybody need to buy a ticket") these passengers will walk out the other end and not pay for their journey. I was having a conversation with somebody who knows the numbers last week, and apparently the most recent exercise of extending barrier times on a Sunday at Cardiff has been netting considerable revenue.

These passengers view themselves as "law abiding", and would, I am sure, never dream of shoplifting or driving off without paying for petrol. When told that they should have bought the ticket before boarding (as I always do inform them) the usual response is indignation, and an accusation that 'You have an attitude problem".

ATW are not happy at having to employ this company for Revenue support, and for years have not taken any realistic prosecution action, it is only relativly recently they have started making some effort. This is because the problem became so big they could not afford to ignore it any more.

I am sorry, Flamingo, but in the face of an awful lot of interesting, expert and sensible things that you post, that is a unpleasant and insensitive remark that instantly angered me. The lady in question has not been not paying. Irrespective of the technicalities of leaving the queue and whether a season with exactly the same number of days validity bought a few hours later amounts to the same thing as the one she would have obtained had she waited, she has not been "made to pay" - she was paying all along and continued to do so.

I appreciate that she is in a tight spot but surely there's a place for a bit of sensitivity and humanity along with the advice as to what the law means here?

Michael. I never intended to be sensitive, I don't do touchy-feely, unless I consider it to be justified. You are falling into the same trap as the OP, in viewing non-payment as a "technicality". In this case I am quite happy that the OP's wife was caught, at the very least, thinking that paying for the journey was an optional extra, as she had more important things to do. IMHO, the RPI acted correctly. Believe me, as Greenback said, that is potentially going to be the view of the Prosecutions office, who have heard every excuse going. This was not somebody who got confused with an advance ticket, or forgot an in-date railcard, or got confused with peak and off-peak times (all of which I see - and exercise discretion with - on a daily basis). This was somebody who having been instructed to buy the ticket they wished to at their destination, decided it was too much hassle to do so.

Anyway, I think I have contributed all I can to this thread.

 

[Greenback]

CCTV? Maybe spend the money and effort chasing/prosecuting the vandals? If the REO was at the departure station they could ensure customers bought tickets before boarding the train, which in an ideal world is what my wife would have bought the ticket there.

Seems to me that rationale is based on "well it is hard to catch the vandals, so we won't bother, but it is easy to catch people who make innocent mistakes at a station, so let's put our resources there instead and catch them out! And we'll even make some profit off the back of it! We'd make nothing from the vandals. Shareholders will be mighty impressed with us!"

I don't have the answers I'm afraid. Your remarks about it being easier to catch those who make a mistake have been on these forums many times, and it is something that the rail industry is perceived as doing. The same remarks are often made about motorists and speeding/parking fines too!

 

[Mrcommonsense]

I work South Wales trains. On days/times there are no barriers, the number of passengers who walk past open ticket offices, let alone TVM's are huge. The majority of them will pay on the train - when challenged. If not directly asked for a ticket (as opposed to just seeing the guard walking through the carriage asking "Anybody need to buy a ticket") these passengers will walk out the other end and not pay for their journey. I was having a conversation with somebody who knows the numbers last week, and apparently the most recent exercise of extending barrier times on a Sunday at Cardiff has been netting considerable revenue.

These passengers view themselves as "law abiding", and would, I am sure, never dream of shoplifting or driving off without paying for petrol. When told that they should have bought the ticket before boarding (as I always do inform them) the usual response is indignation, and an accusation that 'You have an attitude problem".

ATW are not happy at having to employ this company for Revenue support, and for years have not taken any realistic prosecution action, it is only relativly recently they have started making some effort. This is because the problem became so big they could not afford to ignore it any more..

All of the above relates to my wife how exactly? That is the exact opposite of what she would do.

Michael. I never intended to be sensitive, I don't do touchy-feely, unless I consider it to be justified. You are falling into the same trap as the OP, in viewing non-payment as a "technicality". In this case I am quite happy that the OP's wife was caught, at the very least, thinking that paying for the journey was an optional extra, as she had more important things to do. IMHO, the RPI acted correctly. Believe me, as Greenback said, that is potentially going to be the view of the Prosecutions office, who have heard every excuse going. This was not somebody who got confused with an advance ticket, or forgot an in-date railcard, or got confused with peak and off-peak times (all of which I see - and exercise discretion with - on a daily basis). This was somebody who having been instructed to buy the ticket they wished to at their destination, decided it was too much hassle to do so.

Anyway, I think I have contributed all I can to this thread.

First comment, maybe not. The above comment, massively insensitive. Sorry, but were you there? How can you say she had no intention of paying? That she decided she wasn't going to pay? I made it very clear that she had every intention of paying as she believed (rightly or wrongly) that the ticket she was purchasing on the same day covered her for that journey. She is not an expert in the Railway Regulations Act, as I have stated. She was not "instructed" to do anything, she was let through the barriers to buy a ticket. She was not aware that needed to be right away, as I have stated, so long as the ticket was purchased to cover the journey. This is someone who got confused with whether or not it was OK to purchase a ticket at THAT TIME at THAT PLACE after having been previously told that buying her ticket on that day covers her morning journey.

How can you say she saw paying for the journey as an "optional extra?" I have already stated she believed the ticket she was to purchase later covered that journey. So either you are unable to read English or unable to comprehend it. Perhaps it is my fault in explaining it. Perhaps here I have broken some law and now I'll be prosecuted by the forum admin. I'm sure you enjoy swatting up on the railway byelaws but can't you see how member of the public may not be aware. They have to trust information given to them by people of authority. Likening her case to the first point you made about people just walking through the barriers is idiotic.

The fact that you get abuse from railway passengers, whilst unfortunate, is no reason to take it out on other people. Did my wife make comments about the attitude of the staff? Did she have a go at the REO? Were you there? You have my account of it to go on and because you can see that I am frustrated with the situation you have made up an ill-conceived view of my wife based on my frustrations.

I am all for the train barriers. I am all for ticket facilities offering people the chance of buying a ticket. If this particular ticket office was on the other side of the barriers then according to your logic she would not have committed a crime by leaving the queue, so in fact I would have preferred for her not to be let through the barriers in this instance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I notice this thread has gone round in the same circles many times over now, and there seems to be some sort of denial of any wrongdoing, however....

There was no innocent mistake made here, that isn't what the problem is. It's been explained enough times already and the blame game won't work with this one.

Thanks for your constructive advice......

Define innocent mistake.

Actually don't. Because we'll end up going round in circles again