Letter from Debt collection team at Northern rail. Advice needed Please

[oversteer]

One may be guilty of not producing a valid ticket but one may not be guilty of evading the fare. And that is the accusation in the letter

But the letter is just requesting information, it does not say what charge Northern would be laying before the court, or even whether they would take it as far as that.
It is just asking for the OP's version of events. I agree he/she did not avoid the fare, but he/she certainly did not provide a ticket when requested, which does mean that a prosecution is possible.

 

[Wapper01]

Thanks for all the advice posted

Hellfire they were my thoughts exactly. Although I am now glad i asked for advice on this forum, as it doesnt seem like the case. I have a scanned image of both the out and return ticket, and I did attempt to pay on my card which is a standard Visa which was declined. Reading all the advice it seems the best course of action would be to send copies of the tickets, my bank statement and a account of what happened, and the honest mistake it was. Can I also ask would it be wise to include the fact that I was involved in a severe car accident earlier in the year, which caused brain damage, an addition to the reason I forgot? Or would that just be detrimental to my arguement? Thanks again for the continued advice.

 

[SussexMan]

Can I also ask would it be wise to include the fact that I was involved in a severe car accident earlier in the year, which caused brain damage, an addition to the reason I forgot?

No, don't mention it. It's not relevant... and I'm sure prosecution departments find that 50% of people they deal with have just managed to have something bad happen... their aunt died, their house caught fire, their friend was ill, their cat died, etc. etc. etc. Whilst some might be true I'm sure they can't all be and it could mean that the prosecution dept start wondering about the rest of your story.

Stick to relevant facts.

 

[34D]

I think you would be well advised to get the return ticket back from your company's expenses department. That is the evidence that you had no intention of evading the fare. Send a letter to Northern with photocopies of the two tickets and explain the situation.

Let us not forget that the out/return tickets will have numbers that correspond.

Once Northern have acknowledged receipt of the photocopies, offer to send the originals in for mag-stripe scanning.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We can not be sure that the machine was at fault. All the machine does is verify the PIN. How the card is programmed via the chip will determine whether the transaction is authorised or declined. This can depend on the relationship between the passenger and their bank or can just be a random check imposed on any card transaction. Regardless of the reason for the declination the onus is on the passenger to either have a ticket where facilities exist or to have the means to pay when asked if not.

Whereas I do have sympathy with passengers who genuinely do not know that their cards are Authorise All Transactions, the sad fact is many now know that their cards will decline and use that reason to avoid any "attempt to avoid paying" charge.



See above, we can not be sure. I do not think that having your card declined is a good defence.

With regard to the rest of your post you do raise many valid points. My advice is wait & see what Northern send out to you through the post.

Let us not forget that cards can decline on trains for the simple reason that the guards' machine is out of GSM signal range. I've had this occur to me in the past.

Between Leeds and Cross Gates (a stretch of line I have intimate knowledge of) my mobile phones loose signal in Marsh Lane cutting, for example.

 

[island]

Let us not forget that cards can decline on trains for the simple reason that the guards' machine is out of GSM signal range. I've had this occur to me in the past.
.

That's not correct. Guards' Avantix Mobile machines never go online.

 

[Flamingo]

Guards' Avantix Mobile machines never go online.

Correct. They have nothing to do with GSM.

 

[NLC1072]

A bylaw 18 offence covers an "honest mistake", when it does go to court. If one can't produce a valid ticket at the time of being asked, one is guilty, QED. No if's or but's.

And the reason for this is because it covers the event of a customer claiming "oh I left the return portion in the machine/I used the wrong portion of the ticket when I was on my way" and then passing the return to their mate for them to use.

 

[Flamingo]

And the reason for this is because it covers the event of a customer claiming "oh I left the return portion in the machine/I used the wrong portion of the ticket when I was on my way" and then passing the return to their mate for them to use.

The bylaws and NRCoC are written with nearly 200 years of lame excuses in mind.

 

[island]

All tickets, passes, and excuses please!

 

[142094]

All tickets, passes, and excuses please!

I've seen some RPIs use this exact phrase, although one did it when a group of managers were on the train. Hasn't done it since.

 

[455driver]

I've seen some RPIs use this exact phrase, although one did it when a group of managers were on the train. Hasn't done it since.

Its called having a sense of humour, sackable offence these days!:roll:

 

[Flamingo]

The way to deal with managers is ask to see their passes, then start sniggering at their photographs...

 

[Express Link]

One question which has not been considered is whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute, a question which the prosecutor must under the code for Crown Prosecutors consider before making their complaint to Magistrates the first step in the issue of the summons.

In this case the accused whilst guilty on the basis of strict liability does have an explanation which a court might find credible despite what we cynics in the Enforcement World might think. This may account for the train companies desire to relieve him of £150.
The balancing argument is that fare evasion is prevalent, law abiding citizens are placed at a disadvantage and as a way of drawing the attention of the wider public to this offence prosecution is in the public interest.

Magistrates are in my experience notoriously fickle and a good defence lawyer before the right bench could get away with a not guilty or perhaps guilty but with a small fine, little or nothing in the way of costs but the accused still gets a criminal conviction. On another day before another bench a far higher fine and full costs. The accused should take independent legal advice.

 

[island]

TOC prosecutors are not bound, I would assume, by any code for the Crown Prosecution Service.

 

[Express Link]

Although TOC prosecutors are not Crown Prosecutors they still have to consider the contents of the code when taking prosecutions. The same applies to all other prosecutors such as local authorities and I am often asked to justify the "public interest " in a particular case.

 

[island]

Where does it say that?

 

[michael769]

I do not agree that private persons and organisations are bound the the code - there is an important clue in the name: The Code for Crown Prosecutors . It is possible that some ToCs may voluntarily choose to follow it but that is a matter of choice.

In theory the CPS can take over a private prosecution and then abandon it in the public interest but it is unlikely that the CPS would have the resources or inclination to review every single case that ToCs would seek to begin, so it is vanishingly unlikely that this would happen unless there were specific circumstances that drew additional scrutiny to it for example if there was some media controversy around it.

 

[Hellfire]

I do not agree that private persons and organisations are bound the the code - there is an important clue in the name: The Code for Crown Prosecutors . It is possible that some ToCs may voluntarily choose to follow it but that is a matter of choice.

I think Michael is right in that TOC prosecutors are not strictly bound by the code but it would be a very foolish prosecutor who ignored it. As Express Link rightly says a Bench can apply the public interest test to any prosecution regardless of whether or not it felt that the prosecutor was strictly bound by the CPS code.

One of the joys, and in some cases frustrations for any prosecutor is the difficulty of predicting what a magistrates court may or may not decide. A prosecutor can stand in front of a bench with what he/she feels is a perfectly cut and dried case only to have it shot down in flames because the chairman has decided he/she doesn't like the cut of your jib.

Even if the Bench finds in favour of the prosecutor's case there is no guarantee whatsoever as to the sentence that might be imposed. As for the question of costs, those are not guaranteed either. I would be interested to know how often Northern actually gets the £150 in costs they threaten will be imposed as that is something they have no control over. I used to ask for the standard amount of costs my previous organisation felt was appropriate but it was never certain I'd get them, or even a percentage of them.

I agree that, in many cases of fare evasion or non-posession of a valid ticket, the magistrates may well come down firmly on the side of the TOC. But, in cases such as the one which started this thread, that cannot be assumed.

 

[michael769]

As Express Link rightly says a Bench can apply the public interest test to any prosecution regardless of whether or not it felt that the prosecutor was strictly bound by the CPS code.

Under what statute or Common Law are magistrates granted the power to apply such a test?

 

[Express Link]

Whilst the code is written for Crown Prosecutors pursuant to s10 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 In 1951, Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General, stated that 'It has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution'. He added that there should be a prosecution: 'wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest' (House of Commons Debates, Volume 483, 29 January 1951).

Thus it would appear to be a long established principle that where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution or to offer an out-of-court disposal, prosecutors who ever they may be employed by must consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. The Code provides useful guidance in this respect.

I rest my case.

 

[michael769]

I am afraid to say that I see nothing in that quote that would allow a magistrate to desert a case solely on public interest grounds. That simpy sems to be the guiding principle behind the Full Test. Nor do I see any mention of a relevant statute or judgement by a Superior Court of Record.

I can tell you that under the current law once a case is started unless the prosecutor agrees to desert it the magistrate is bound by law to render a verdict solely on the evidence provided. They can only consider the public interest when rendering a verdict. Only a jury (whose deliberations are secret and verdict unaccountable) holds such discretion.

 

[Express Link]

Whilst the Code for Crown Prosecutors is written for those employed by the CPS see section 10 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 All prosecutors should be mindful of the words of Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General who in 1951, made a classic statement on public interest: "It has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution". He went on to say that there should be a prosecution: "wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest" (House of Commons Debates, Volume 483, 29 January 1951). This approach has been endorsed by Attorneys General ever since.

A prosecutor not employed by the CPS should be mindful of these wise words least he find the whole basis of his prosecution challenged.

 

[island]

Change the record, please.

 

[Flamingo]

I think the bottom line is that TOC's have been prosecuting people under the Regulation of the Railway 1889 since, oh, around 1889. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Railways_Act_1889

I'd guess they have it figured out by now...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think the bottom line is that TOC's have been prosecuting people under the Regulation of the Railway 1889 since, oh, around 1889.
I'd guess they have it figured out by now...

Exactly! (Not that the Companies were always called TOCs) and the prior legislation had almost the same wording before then.

Though it is also true that of the many thousands of succesfull prosecutions under that Act and the Railway Byelaws, only a modest proportion will have been defended or challenged by experienced and knowledgeable Counsel; few of those cases would have merited any special expertise.

But for the record, I'll repeat that even I, over the years, have managed to avert Prosecution of so-called 'strict liability' offences a few times. They're not immutable thresholds.
But I've been curious about this thread - some of the quite extraordinary posts (incl. those from Hellfire & Express Line) and some of the forum's more 'usual points of view' posters (incl. island & 34d) seem to have been testing the basis for a successful Prosecution in this matter unlike ever before; all of this in response to a simple request to assist the OP who had apparently been inadvertent in mixing up the 2 portions of a return ticket and wanted to reply to Northern Rail's request for a report of the incident.
And we also had Wiggaz bring a refreshingly informed point of view on how to Defend the matter.

Now we've all seen threads wander off-topic and attract spurious points of view before, but now that five days have passed since Wapper01, the OP, last posted on here, with the intention of explaining the facts to Northern Rail's Investigator, I would like to know what it was about this relatively common incident that has attracted so much comment and challenge to the fundamentals of the procedures and framework which as flamingo noticed has been effective in distinguishing and sentencing fare evaders for 125 years ?

 

[snail]

I would like to know what it was about this relatively common incident that has attracted so much comment and challenge to the fundamentals of the procedures and framework which as flamingo noticed has been effective in distinguishing and sentencing fare evaders for 125 years ?

Does the fact of Hellfire and Express Link each having just 11 posts each have any relevance here? I know the number of posts does nothing to indicate the extent of knowledge, but there is a tendency on internet fora for some people to jump in thinking they know everything whereas the more long-serving members will stand back thinking "we've seen this all before"...

 

[Express Link]

And there was me thinking that if you had a view to offer or some knowledge of an aspect of a particular topic you could do so. For Snail’s benefit I tend to post when I believe that I have a salient point to offer to the discussion. Island also asked a reasonable question “where does it say that?” and I answered.
My comment about public interest was an attempt to try and give some insight into a factor which a prosecutor will take into account when deciding whether or not to bring a case to court.

 

[island]

And we challenged your post on the grounds that it referred to the CPS and not private prosecutors. All fair, I think.

 

[Hellfire]

But I've been curious about this thread - some of the quite extraordinary posts (incl. those from Hellfire & Express Line) and some of the forum's more 'usual points of view' posters (incl. island & 34d) seem to have been testing the basis for a successful Prosecution in this matter unlike ever before;

Interesting question. I'll try and answer it as succinctly as I can.

Any posts I have put on this thread have been specifically in response to the situation described by the OP. I have not been commenting on the overall question of fare evasion or Byelaw 18. Like everyone else who has commented, I have had to accept the version of events put forward by the OP for the purpose of this discussion in the absence of any other evidence.

I appreciate there are members of this forum who have a far greater knowledge of the complexities of railway byelaws than I do and I can understand that some of those people, who work with this day in and day out might feel a bit miffed when they think a rank amateur is posting opinions on the subject.

None of us are required to list our particular areas of expertise when posting, neither would I want people to have to do so. However, in response to a PM on the subject I have said that I do have experience of prosecuting in magistrates courts so I am not entirely ignorant of the subject. I also served for many years as a Special Constable (not to be confused with PCSOs) which means I have direct experience of the process of arrest, PACE, witness statements and court appearances.

My initial post on this thread came after some members seemed to be advising the OP to send money to Northern in a bid to fend off a possible prosecution. I did point out that a) they were just asking for a response at this stage and b) that the threat that, if the matter went to court, the OP would be liable for £150 in costs was completely empty.

Very few people have the inclination, time and, in most cases money to employ professional legal help. So TOCs can usually rely on the fact that, even if their allegation is not 100% watertight, it is unlikely to be challenged by a lawyer in court. This is often because the penalties imposed are less than the cost of the lawyer.

When you are working in any sort of job that involves upholding rules and regulations, whether statute law or railway bylaws, some people do tend to develop a black and white sort of mentality. I was guilty of that myself on many occasions. In many, if not most allegations under Byelaw 18 or fare evasion I would guess that things are black and white and it is pretty obvious an offence has been committed. I have no problem with crack downs on people who don't pay their fare. That benefits all honest fare paying passengers.

However, it would be foolish to deny that there are a minority of such cases that might be an exception to the rule and I don't think anyone suggesting this on this forum should be castigated for it. By all means, let's have a debate. But the response from one or two posters seems to imply that anyone taking a contrary viewpoint does not know what they are talking about.

I have tried to point out, things that seem cut and dried when you walk into a magistrates court as a prosecutor occasionally unravel in ways you don't expect. One or two people have said they don't believe private prosecutors are subject to the Code of Conduct followed by the CPS. That may be so although I don't know if that has ever been tested. As someone rightly pointed out, magistrates have no power under statute to question the merit of a prosecution. However, they are perfectly capable of making their views known either by coming up with a Not Guilty verdict or, as is more usual, imposing a minute fine and awarding minimal costs or no costs at all.

It is one of the great strengths of the criminal justice system that courts don't necessarily have to see things in black and white and can take account of all sorts of circumstances outside the strict content of the prosecution case.

I really hope the OP comes back to us with the progress of the case. If he can produce the evidence that he did buy and pay for the return ticket, will Northern push it to court and, if they do, what was the result?

Sorry this is a bit long. None of what I have written should be implied as any criticism of other posters who may not agree with me. I value each and every single posting on these forums and have learned a great deal since I first stumbled across them. May healthy debate continue.

 

[BestWestern]

It depends on whether the card offered was a card normally accepted by TOCs, and not, say, a Visa Electron.

Without wishing to muddy the waters further here, the issue of cards being declined is a perplexing one. Bearing in mind that - to the best of my knowledge - no TOC puts up big posters, or indeed any obvious signage, stating that certain cards are not accepted, do they really have a leg to stand on when it comes to chasing people who's perfectly legitimate means of payment is refused through no fault of their own? It is clearly a rather confused policy to invite somebody to pay for a ticket on board, refuse their card regardless of what funds may have been available, and then try to prosecute them for not paying. It is the railway's own decision to use outmoded technology after all, the average person cannot and should not be expected to understand the inner workings of bank transactions!

There is obviously some debate regarding this particular case, as to whether the OP is being accused of not showing a ticket or just not being able to pay for one, but the card declined issue is something well overdue for further investigation I feel.