MG11 / Direct Prosecution

[railticket]

Hi All

Can a RPI inspector send you to court directly without any notice ? or will they have to give me a notice to settle things.

Here is my full story ( I am already confused by reading many posts so I would appreciate only RPIs or experienced people reply to me, not meaning to sound arrogant but other replies and your 'views' would only confuse me further and not help towards this post)



I was stopped by FGW couple of weeks back. I had to buy a ticket for 2 pounds. It was a friday and i was just coming back from work (after a stressful meeting with my boss)... there was a train and I had to rush and take the train (genuine reason).But I realise travelling without ticket is wrong!


It was almost 9 pm and normally the barriers are open. I was blocked and asked for my ticket. here was the problem. I didnt know the laws here ( i am an immigrant) and just gave an excuse saying it was lost and the inspector asked me to go to a differnt officer and buy a ticket. (I was surprised as to why he didnt ask me to pay penalty and assumed my story worked) I approached the other officer and he asked me where is my original ticket.

Wanting to stick with the original story I told him I lost it and he mentioned, you couldnt have bought the ticket as the ticket machines in that station will not be working with cash now. I thought he is just testing me and I chose to stick with the story and said I will pay the fine if you want.

But he called another officer, who showed me his id and started asking for my details. I told him my full name and address and he called someone. I live in a shared flat and the house is not registered against me and the verification didnt show my name and the officer wasnt convinced I gave him my real details.
(they were my details)

He said they will send an MG11 to me and that is all. I was really tired and had a bad meeting with my boss and running a bad phase with my gf ( who i was supposed to meet later) and getting delayed now by this process and I had no charge in my phone to call my gf. It was all playing in my head and the officer cautioned me with a statement i didnt understand completely and also said I could leave anytime. I chose to leave and surprisingly they didnt even charge me for anything.

I went and met up with my gf later but now after reading all these threads I am really upset. Will i be sent to prosecuton straight away? Can the RPIs do it by themselves.
Or will i be given a letter and ask for fine. I will pay any amount as if we go to court I would plead guilty and as an immigrant and the new laws i really dont want to risk my chances.
My whole world is here. It will affect my visa extensions, going to US, Australia where I have to travel as part of my job.

what do you suggest. should I write to TOC and explain them and offer to pay up. even though I have not recieved any letter so far (been 10 days)

I tried calling them but they only encourage written quries and I dont know what to do?

 

[RJ]

Hi All

Can a RPI inspector send you to court directly without any notice ? or will they have to give me a notice to settle things.

Here is my full story ( I am already confused by reading many posts so I would appreciate only RPIs or experienced people reply to me, not meaning to sound arrogant but other replies and your 'views' would only confuse me further and not help towards this post)



I was stopped by FGW couple of weeks back. I had to buy a ticket for 2 pounds. It was a friday and i was just coming back from work (after a stressful meeting with my boss)... there was a train and I had to rush and take the train (genuine reason).But I realise travelling without ticket is wrong!


It was almost 9 pm and normally the barriers are open. I was blocked and asked for my ticket. here was the problem. I didnt know the laws here ( i am an immigrant) and just gave an excuse saying it was lost and the inspector asked me to go to a differnt officer and buy a ticket. (I was surprised as to why he didnt ask me to pay penalty and assumed my story worked) I approached the other officer and he asked me where is my original ticket.

Wanting to stick with the original story I told him I lost it and he mentioned, you couldnt have bought the ticket as the ticket machines in that station will not be working with cash now. I thought he is just testing me and I chose to stick with the story and said I will pay the fine if you want.

But he called another officer, who showed me his id and started asking for my details. I told him my full name and address and he called someone. I live in a shared flat and the house is not registered against me and the verification didnt show my name and the officer wasnt convinced I gave him my real details.
(they were my details)

He said they will send an MG11 to me and that is all. I was really tired and had a bad meeting with my boss and running a bad phase with my gf ( who i was supposed to meet later) and getting delayed now by this process and I had no charge in my phone to call my gf. It was all playing in my head and the officer cautioned me with a statement i didnt understand completely and also said I could leave anytime. I chose to leave and surprisingly they didnt even charge me for anything.

I went and met up with my gf later but now after reading all these threads I am really upset. Will i be sent to prosecuton straight away? Can the RPIs do it by themselves.
Or will i be given a letter and ask for fine. I will pay any amount as if we go to court I would plead guilty and as an immigrant and the new laws i really dont want to risk my chances.
My whole world is here. It will affect my visa extensions, going to US, Australia where I have to travel as part of my job.

what do you suggest. should I write to TOC and explain them and offer to pay up. even though I have not recieved any letter so far (been 10 days)

I tried calling them but they only encourage written quries and I dont know what to do?

Yes, they can. Some RPIs I know on some lines (HS1 for example) don't even carry Penalty Fare pads, no ticket and no money means a straight report for prosecution under Railway Byelaw 18 (most commonly) or RoR Act 1889. It does state on print media at stations that you could face a Penalty Fare or prosecution if you don't fulfill your responsibilities.


If you do find yourself in such an unfortunate situation, you can send a genuine apology/explanation (blaming others/complaining about conduct/refering to the negligible fare amount is unlikely to help) to the TOC's customer relations office, offer to pay all accumulated admin costs, plus the price of the fare and hope they're willing to settle out of court. Depending on the seriousness of the alleged offence, they may accept or reject the offer. Having no previous may count in your favour.

If they do reject your offer then unfortunately you've sent them a confession which would give them a stronger case. Best of luck, hopefully they'll show some lenience.

 

[Mojo]

At my company the inspector decides (based partly on a document which details the appropriate course of action) whether to charge the fare due, issue a penalty fare or take details and submit a report of irregular travelling.

It is then up to the appropriate department which receives the report of irregular travelling (or does not receive the fare due or a paid penalty fare if not paid on the spot) as to what action they wish to take.

So to answer your question; "can an inspector send you to court directly without any notice?" at least at my company (and I'd imagine many others) is "no" as it is up to the appropriate department in the organisation which action to take. If you actually meant to ask; "can the company send you to court in the first instance?" then the answer is "yes," but I'd expect you will have some notification and won't wake up one morning to find two burly men outside your house to drag you kicking and screaming into a court room.

 

[railticket]

thanks for the reply guys

At my company the inspector decides (based partly on a document which details the appropriate course of action) whether to charge the fare due, issue a penalty fare or take details and submit a report of irregular travelling.

It is then up to the appropriate department which receives the report of irregular travelling (or does not receive the fare due or a paid penalty fare if not paid on the spot) as to what action they wish to take.

So to answer your question; "can an inspector send you to court directly without any notice?" at least at my company (and I'd imagine many others) is "no" as it is up to the appropriate department in the organisation which action to take. If you actually meant to ask; "can the company send you to court in the first instance?" then the answer is "yes," but I'd expect you will have some notification and won't wake up one morning to find two burly men outside your house to drag you kicking and screaming into a court room.

Many thanks mate! A few more question if that is not too much of a bother

1, Any Idea on how long the whole processing takes (if it were to be decided by a back office team?) - I will be relocating to Leeds very soon (in a month or 2) and if I miss the court summons!.

2. What exactly is MG11 ? I googled and it just says witness statement. Dont know how it applies in this context?

3. Should I engaging a lawyer after the notice help me ?

@ RJ - Thanks mate, I didnt mean to blame anyone, I was just stupid and I totally agree. But just wanted to paint the mindset I was in. And me being in UK and being able to travel to US and Australia means a lot to me in the context of my whole life and somewhere it is really hard to digest the consequences for not buying a £2 ticket could be so harsh!

Anyway, that is my worry. What if they dont want to take any action and my letter enquiring / apologizing triggers them to do so. I dont have any previous tickets at all!

Thanks again for your replies guys.

 

[yorkie]

It was almost 9 pm and normally the barriers are open.

The rules are you should buy at the first opportunity, in some cases that may be at your destination. If you admit that you would have walked off without paying if the barriers were open, then that it an admission of intent to avoid the fare

I was blocked and asked for my ticket. here was the problem. I didnt know the laws here ( i am an immigrant) and just gave an excuse saying it was lost and the inspector asked me to go to a differnt officer and buy a ticket. (I was surprised as to why he didnt ask me to pay penalty and assumed my story worked) I approached the other officer and he asked me where is my original ticket.

Wanting to stick with the original story I told him I lost it and he mentioned, you couldnt have bought the ticket as the ticket machines in that station will not be working with cash now. I thought he is just testing me and I chose to stick with the story and said I will pay the fine if you want.

A 'Penalty fare' applies where someone did not intend to avoid payment but should have got a ticket before boarding. A penalty fare does not apply in your case by the sound of it, because of two reasons (either would be valid by itself)
1) You demonstrated intent to avoid payment (that can result in prosecution); and
2) Ticket issuing facilities were not available (that means you were entitled to pay the appropriate fare at your destination - however you did not ask to be issued with a ticket, ie you declined to pay when asked).

And as for saying "I will pay the fine if you want" a fine is only given out if you are found (or pleed) guilty, it will have to go to trial first.

But he called another officer, who showed me his id and started asking for my details. I told him my full name and address and he called someone. I live in a shared flat and the house is not registered against me and the verification didnt show my name and the officer wasnt convinced I gave him my real details.
(they were my details)

He said they will send an MG11 to me and that is all. I was really tired and had a bad meeting with my boss and running a bad phase with my gf ( who i was supposed to meet later) and getting delayed now by this process and I had no charge in my phone to call my gf. It was all playing in my head and the officer cautioned me with a statement i didnt understand completely and also said I could leave anytime. I chose to leave and surprisingly they didnt even charge me for anything.

If you have any concerns about how you were treated, you may wish to state those concerns to a solicitor.

Regarding not charging you for the fare, that is because you didn't ask to be sold a ticket, instead you demonstrated an intent to avoid the fare, therefore the result is a prosecution rather than being asked to pay the fare.

I went and met up with my gf later but now after reading all these threads I am really upset. Will i be sent to prosecuton straight away? Can the RPIs do it by themselves.

Yes, but, not quite. Can RPIs go straight for the prosecution option? Yes. But the MG11 form will get sent to the Prosecutions Department, they then choose whether to prosecute. They may write to you requesting further information first...

Or will i be given a letter and ask for fine.

.. well, expect to receive a letter, they may ask for further information before deciding whether or not to prosecute.

Only a court can issue a fine, if you are found (or pleed) guilty.

I will pay any amount as if we go to court I would plead guilty and as an immigrant and the new laws i really dont want to risk my chances.

I suggest you seek legal advice.

My whole world is here. It will affect my visa extensions, going to US, Australia where I have to travel as part of my job.

what do you suggest.

You are likely to be charged with intent to avoid payment of your fare under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

should I write to TOC and explain them and offer to pay up. even though I have not recieved any letter so far (been 10 days)

Yes! You could offer them a significant sum, (perhaps £100?), as a means of apology and to cover their admin costs. It may be worth seeking legal advice first though.

It could be a good strategy as staff involved in revenue protection have told us that some companies (including First Group) are keen to settle out of court.

On the other hand it could backfire as it could be seen as an admission of guilt.

We are happy to provide advice here but don't take it as legal advice, always consult a lawyer with experience in this field.

If you do choose to write a letter offering payment I would suggest:-
- Keep it concise
- Explain the facts clearly
- State you are keen to pay for the journey travelled and suitable compensation for the wasted time you have caused to the company
- Apologise for your error, and the inconvenience this has caused and that you hope they the payment and compensation offered will be accepted and the matter concluded.

I tried calling them but they only encourage written quries and I dont know what to do?

Write to them rather than call again.

1, Any Idea on how long the whole processing takes (if it were to be decided by a back office team?) - I will be relocating to Leeds very soon (in a month or 2) and if I miss the court summons!

Difficult to say, you could inform them of your new address and/or arrange for forwarding (if practicable) from your old to new address.

2. What exactly is MG11 ? I googled and it just says witness statement. Dont know how it applies in this context?

Basically a witness statement. This is used to gather evidence that may be read out in court, I believe.

3. Should I engaging a lawyer after the notice help me ?

I would engage with a lawyer, yes. As you are moving to Leeds and it may drag on, you may wish to consider this advice where a member reported to us that he had success with a solicitor based in Leeds, note however we cannot verify how accurate this claim is and cannot endorse these solicitors as being able to help you (or be held responsible if they can't!), but if you do choose to contact them (or indeed any solicitor) we would like to know how you get on (feel free to send me a message privately if you like - you can do this once you reach 5 posts).

Some information about an MG11 is provided by an RPI here:

... Remember aMG11 is a Witness Statement and nothing more and is simply the inspector establishing the facts, then it is down to the prosecutors to decide what action needs taking. The inspector makes no decision as to what happens with a MG11 statement once it leaves his pro forma book...

I am not an RPI or a lawyer, the above is not legal advice.

 

[railticket]

@ yorkie - thanks for the details response mate. I will kep my fingures crossed.

Anyway it has taken too much of my head space now over the last 2 weeks. I think I should take a break for couple of days and may be take legal advice.

Thanks again, much appreciated!

 

[yorkie]

@ yorkie - thanks for the details response mate. I will kep my fingures crossed.

You're welcome! Please let us know what happens. And, good luck.

 

[RJ]

@ RJ - Thanks mate, I didnt mean to blame anyone, I was just stupid and I totally agree. But just wanted to paint the mindset I was in. And me being in UK and being able to travel to US and Australia means a lot to me in the context of my whole life and somewhere it is really hard to digest the consequences for not buying a £2 ticket could be so harsh!

Anyway, that is my worry. What if they dont want to take any action and my letter enquiring / apologizing triggers them to do so. I dont have any previous tickets at all!

Thanks again for your replies guys.

I imagine you will receive a letter in the post at some point where the TOC will notify you of their intentions and ask you for your version of events.
I'd hold fire on sending them anything until this arrives. If/when it does, then be truthful, apologetic and offer to pay all reasonable accumulated costs (£100
may be a rough figure). At the same time, don't go off on a tangent to or volunteer any irrelevant information that will put you in the frame. It would definitely be a good idea to consider legal advice ASAP.

Personally I'm lenient when it's blatantly obvious that the person is a tourist or very new to the country, so long as they're being truthful and sincere. Unfortunately two of the worst things you can do is not buy a ticket or use a concession you're not entitled do so it might be an idea to express deep regret for doing the former and fibbing, say you've never done it before and say it won't happen again.

Edit: started on this before I went to sleep, Yorkie has covered many of the same points already!

 

[island]

The real issue here is that you claimed to have lost a ticket you never had. This, combined with the fact that your origin station apparently did not have ticket-issuing facilities, is very likely to be given as evidence that you intended to avoid payment of your fare.

My understanding of the verification process normally involves contacting a central control room who use either credit reference agencies or the electoral roll to verify the details given. (Don't ask me about the legality/DPA implications of this.) If you didn't pass verification I am surprised that they left it there.

I echo the other posters' recommendations up the thread; this is more likely than not to end up in a prosecution for failing to pay a fare with intend to avoid payment, and I would strongly suggest making an offer (perhaps headed "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", as the courts will not generally accept these in evidence) to pay the fare plus admin costs, and I agree that £100 is about the right sum.

Finally, perhaps you were not offered a penalty fare as the station where you boarded wasn't a penalty fares station? FGW has a somewhat haphazard approach to defining its PF zone, in my opinion.

As per above, I am not a lawyer, nor an RPI, nor anything else, so I cannot take any responsibility for the advice.

 

[222007]

He said they will send an MG11 to me and that is all. It was all playing in my head and the officer cautioned me with a statement i didnt understand completely and also said I could leave anytime. I chose to leave and surprisingly they didnt even charge me for anything.

As an RPI myself i can advise a couple of points here. Firstly an MG11 is a witness report (BTP write MG11's when you give a statement to them). The inspector will put in it what happened pre-caution notes then what was asked under caution. In my TOC's case we then hand our report to our prosecution department.

Also the RPI was correct you can leave at any time but i'd advise (whether the person chooses to or not is up to them) the person remain to get there side of events across as no offence may have been committed.

You had the oppotunity to be honest with the RPI and you have admitted you maintained your original story if FGW are like my TOC they will send messeges out to staff informing then of booking office closures so the RPI would have known you were being dishonest.

All i can say is best of luck and keep us informed

 

[TEW]

FGW has a somewhat haphazard approach to defining its PF zone, in my opinion.

That's because they are three separate PF schemes and zones. The maps show the three different zones. You can only be penalty fared within a zone, not crossing between them. It is to stop Penalty Fares on long distance services.

 

[Ferret]

I'm a guard with many RPIs as friends and colleagues, and I can tell you that just because an MG11 is filled in, it does not automatically go to Court. I will be absolutely amazed if FGW issue you with a Court Summons straight away. The standard way of doing things is that an MG11 is submitted (or a TIR in my case), and then the company writes to you asking you for an explanation - your side of events. Do not ignore this letter - but by all means take legal advice if you so desire. On balance, it's certainly possible that if you write back to FGW apologising, offering to pay the fare and any Admin costs they have incurred, they may well accept that and take no further action. There's no guarantees of course, but if you have a clean record up to now, that makes such an outcome more likely. However, FGW are under no obligation to accept your offer - they are entitled to prosecute, and it's up to them to make that decision. Good luck.

 

[RPI]

Yorkie has offered good advice, I am involved with Revenue Protection with the TOC concerned here and I feel that the inspector made a good call, you were offered the chance to be honest and pay at the start but you instead insisted that you had already paid but lost your ticket, there's the intent.

They will write a letter to you asking your version of events and your reply will determine what action is taken, if you ignor it then prosecution is inevitable.

 

[Stigy]

As has been said, yes, the company can go straight to court with this if they wish. The RPI himself will submit an MG11 form outlining the facts, and as you were cautioned, the conversation will be written down, verbatim...Or as accurately as is transfered in the Inspector's Notebook. Given that you first said you lost your rail ticket, and stuck by this story, unless the RPI/TOC can prove otherwise, you're likely, should it reach Magistrates' Court, to be charged under Railway Byelaw 18.2 (unable to produce a ticket in laymans terms). If you ended up telling the RPI what you have told us, or if other evidence came to light, then you could well be charged under Section 5.3(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (due to the RPI/TOC establishing your intentions to avoid payment). The latter typically holds a fine on succesful prosection of £350 (plus costs etc incurred) and a criminal conviction, plus is a recordable offence and will show up on the Police National Computer (if the courts communicate this to the Police). The potential on subsequent offences of the latter is 3-months imprisonment and/or £1,000 fine. Don't worry trhough, you'll have to be either very wealthy or very persistant for a £1,000 fine!

The former offence is arguably less serious, as Byelaw offences are not recordable, and will likely get you a smaller fine, plus costs, plus victim surcharge. It's still a criminal conviction if found guilty at court. Bear in mind that the Byelaw offence is a Strict Liability matter, and no eveidence of any intentional fare evasion is needed.

I would wait for the company to contact you, and when they do, write back and express your deepest regret and say it was your first offence (assuming it was) and advise that you'll meet all reasonable admin charges to stay out of court. The TOC doesn't have to accept, but if they decline, at least you can say you tried!

You weren't sold a ticket because your were reported for an offence, and as such this acted as your rail fare. If the RPI reported you and then sold you a ticket, there wouldn't be an offence anymore, as the price had been paid and thus the company isn't owed any money! Might sound a little sneaky, and trucst me it can come accross worse when trying to explain this to a member of the public in person (although I woulkd never mention not being any offence etc...Or MG11 for that matter.....laymans terms!).

thanks for the reply guys



Many thanks mate! A few more question if that is not too much of a bother

1, Any Idea on how long the whole processing takes (if it were to be decided by a back office team?) - I will be relocating to Leeds very soon (in a month or 2) and if I miss the court summons!.

2. What exactly is MG11 ? I googled and it just says witness statement. Dont know how it applies in this context?

3. Should I engaging a lawyer after the notice help me ?

1. Expect to receive your first correspondence in around 6-8 weeks time. Legally the charge has to be layed with the courts within 6-months, and this is roughly how long these things take from start to finish.

2. As had been said, an MG11 is a Witness Statement. It stands for "Method of, or Magistrates' Guidance form 11".

3. I would only engage a Lawyer should the matter definitely go to court, although it's obviosly your choice, but bear in mind the costs involved in legal advice etc.

It might be worth noting that a Penalty Fare is meant as a deterrent, and no operator is obliged to issue one for first offences of either Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offences or Byelaws. I'm not going to divolge how, but ascertaining a traveller's intention to avoid payment is very easy under routine questioning, and contrary to popular belief, rail staff weren't born yesterday.

 

[Nick W]

Hold on a minute, the OP cannot be prosecuted under Railway Byelaw 18.2 because Railway Byelaw 18.2 states

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey;

The OP has told us the following:

Wanting to stick with the original story I told him I lost it and he mentioned, you couldnt have bought the ticket as the ticket machines in that station will not be working with cash now. I thought he is just testing me and I chose to stick with the story and said I will pay the fine if you want.

Therefore the OP cannot be prosecuted by this bye-law.


Section 5.3(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 states

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;

But the OP has stated

I thought he is just testing me and I chose to stick with the story and said I will pay the fine if you want.

and therefore was willing to not to pay the cost of a ticket, but to pay a fine on top.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the OP refused to attempt to by a ticket at the original station because of an intend not to buy the fare. Much more convincing is the rhetoric that the OP turned up to find a train already in the station and after a hard-days work, with someone to return to and with the prospect of spending a potentially long period at the time at the station, with few facilities on a cold evening. I therefore don't think the railway can successfully prosecute under this bye-law.

Are there any other laws the railway could prosecute under, or is it unlikely that they will secure a prosecution if the OP gives a reasonable defence?

 

[Clip]

Whilst in essence Nick your right, these type of blocks at stations give you the chance to buy a ticket before you leave.. As he did not offer to buy one and had therefore lied to the RPI concerned, then as far as i understand it the intent to not purchase a ticket was evident and thus still can be prosecuted under the by-law.

 

[Nick W]

Whilst in essence Nick your right, these type of blocks at stations give you the chance to buy a ticket before you leave.. As he did not offer to buy one and had therefore lied to the RPI concerned, then as far as i understand it the intent to not purchase a ticket was evident and thus still can be prosecuted under the by-law.

That's a very good point. But does the lying alone prove lack of intent, given it was much more likely that OP genuinely feared criminal conviction rather than simply wanting to dodge the fair? I suspect, assuming equal competence in court of the "expert witness" and the defence, that the defendant would win.

In fact, I now wonder if the RPI responded appropriately by challenging the OP instead of asking him to buy a new ticket. Obviously no-one likes being lied to, but should the RPI not have said "I know you're lying but you don't need to as there were no issuing facilities.".

 

[Stigy]

Hold on a minute, the OP cannot be prosecuted under Railway Byelaw 18.2 because Railway Byelaw 18.2 states


The OP has told us the following:

Therefore the OP cannot be prosecuted by this bye-law.


Section 5.3(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 states

But the OP has stated
and therefore was willing to not to pay the cost of a ticket, but to pay a fine on top.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the OP refused to attempt to by a ticket at the original station because of an intend not to buy the fare. Much more convincing is the rhetoric that the OP turned up to find a train already in the station and after a hard-days work, with someone to return to and with the prospect of spending a potentially long period at the time at the station, with few facilities on a cold evening. I therefore don't think the railway can successfully prosecute under this bye-law.

Are there any other laws the railway could prosecute under, or is it unlikely that they will secure a prosecution if the OP gives a reasonable defence?

The fact that there's no ticket issuing facilities anyway becomes irrelevant as soon as the OP says anything other than words to the effect of "The machine wasn't working" or "There was nowhere for me to buy a ticket". As soon as the OP states that they ran for the train or they simply thought they could buy a ticket at their destination or anything else similar, then they obviously didn't know the ticket machine was out of use and thus at the very least committed a Byelaw offence.

I would imagine, unless the OP coughed all when questioned, that at the very best they'll prosecute under Byelaw 18.2, as the OP stated that he did buy a rail ticket but had lost it. Even though the RPI knows different, unless admitted when the questions were asked, all he has is the fact that the OP lied, no intention to avoid payment in itself. Unless the OP stated that he/she intended to avoid payment of their rail fare a RRA offence wouldn't realistically be proved I wouldn't have thought.

If it went to court, I suspect the TOC would win purely because of the OP's actions on that day, not to mention it being a Strict Liability matter.

 

[tony_mac]

As soon as the OP states that they ran for the train or they simply thought they could buy a ticket at their destination or anything else similar, then they obviously didn't know the ticket machine was out of use and thus at the very least committed a Byelaw offence.

That seems like some strange logic.
If there were no working ticket issuing facilities, then no byelaw offence is committed. You can't be convicted of thinking that you were breaking a law if you actually weren't!

If it went to court, I suspect the TOC would win purely because of the OP's actions on that day, not to mention it being a Strict Liability matter.

Possibly, but I'm not so sure. Despite claiming he lost his ticket, he also said that he did still offer to pay for a new one at the barrier. You would have to prove that he intended to avoid payment, and not some other form of misunderstanding, possibly as a result of not speaking english natively.

 

[Stigy]

That seems like some strange logic.
If there were no working ticket issuing facilities, then no byelaw offence is committed. You can't be convicted of thinking that you were breaking a law if you actually weren't!



Possibly, but I'm not so sure. Despite claiming he lost his ticket, he also said that he did still offer to pay for a new one at the barrier. You would have to prove that he intended to avoid payment, and not some other form of misunderstanding, possibly as a result of not speaking english natively.

Not strange logic at all. If somebody doesn't mention that they couldn't buy a ticket due to unserviceable facilities to me, and I'm not aware that the facilities are not there, I'm not even going to check on their operation as that hasn't come in to the equation. If the punter doesn't mention it, I'm only to assume there's no issue. Trust me, if there's an issue. A genuine issue. Then the traveller will always tell you, and in those cases you're correct in that no penalty fare/MG11 will be issued/submitted.

Although probably not enough evidence to lay a 5.3(a) charge in court, I'd say that the very fact that the RPI will, or at least should, write in their statement the prologue of events, in this case, "the male/female stated that he/she had bought a ticket at 'XYZ' station but lost it. I then informed him/her that he/she couldn't have bought one there because...". Assuming that's how it happened, because no clarification was given as to whether it was ascertained whether or not the OP bought a ticket just prior to boarding the train, or whether it was the return part of a return ticket bought on an outward journey (I'm assuming the OP refers to a ticket 'bought' just prior to their journey).

This, along with the fact that the TOC will have evidence of the machine not working, makes the fact that there was intention to avoid payment, just no concrete evidence to convict on this...roll on SL Byelaw. As long as the RPI's statement has a clear beginingt, a mkiddle and an end, I see no issue with the TOC seeking to prosecute in this matter.

Also, I don't see where he said he offered to buy a ticket? Unless I'm missing something? Also, the barriers were open and I'm assuming the OP was on his way straight out when stopped? All no doubt stuff that the RPI will state in his MG11. On the plus side for the OP, he didn't wait around to drop himself in it under questioning, although that wont look to good for the Byelaw charge, it probably wont be enough for the RRA charge.

If Railticket's grasp of the English language is as it seems, I doubt that him saying otherwise will be much of a deffence.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry Nick, you know I'm pro-customer generally (and I do wish the OP well), but it is my opinion (IANAL) that this would be a fairly straightforward prosecution as he has effectively admitted he is guilty of a breach of the 1889 act, and even offered, as you say, to pay a fine!

My suggestion to the OP is to try to settle out of court, FGW may well settle for less money than the fine would be, but far more importantly than the fine is the criminal record that goes with it.

The first part of your post regarding the byelaws is not relevant, and I doubt the defence of "I thought he was testing me" is meaningful or will have any impact. Well, yes, he was probably was testing, and the OP failed the test! As numerous revenue staff have stated before (including in this topic) there are certain questions that can be asked, that can assist in determining if it is likely that the person was intending to avoid the fare.

He was given the opportunity to pay his fare, but instead of purchasing his ticket, an untrue story was told. I would be looking for a very good lawyer if I was the OP in trying to get out of that one! Hopefully FGW will settle out of court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As soon as the OP states that they ran for the train or they simply thought they could buy a ticket at their destination or anything else similar, then they obviously didn't know the ticket machine was out of use and thus at the very least committed a Byelaw offence.

I don't agree with this, and I don't feel it is relevant or applicable to the OPs situation.

I would imagine, unless the OP coughed all when questioned, that at the very best they'll prosecute under Byelaw 18.2,

I disagree. Evidence of the intent to avoid payment, under the 1889 act is there, and no person can be in breach of Byelaw 18 in this situation, as Nick W said (but I don't think this helps the OP as it is not relevant)

as the OP stated that he did buy a rail ticket but had lost it. Even though the RPI knows different, unless admitted when the questions were asked, all he has is the fact that the OP lied, no intention to avoid payment in itself. Unless the OP stated that he/she intended to avoid payment of their rail fare a RRA offence wouldn't realistically be proved I wouldn't have thought.

We don't know exactly what was said.

But the OP alleges that one of the statements by the RPI was "you couldnt have bought the ticket as the ticket machines in that station will not be working with cash now."

Of course, he could have bought online, or be using the return portion. There would, for sure, have been more to the conversation to this, and we do not know what the OP said either immediately before or after the RPI came out with this.

However I think that we can expect that the OP was asked questions to determine where he claims to have bought the ticket, and the responses the OP gave are not known to us but concerned the RPIs sufficiently for them to not ask him to pay a fare and instead refer the matter to the prosecutions department. That suggests they thought they had a good case. Which suggests.... well, you get the idea. But we don't know.

I suspect that when someone says "I lost my ticket" they would be asked where and when they bought it. If the OP was asked that, then given the quote from the RPI, well it does not look good, does it?

If it went to court, I suspect the TOC would win purely because of the OP's actions on that day, not to mention it being a Strict Liability matter.

I can't see a prosecution under anything other than the 1889 act, and I don't see that strict liability has anything to do with it, to be honest.

Without knowing what's on the MG11 form it is difficult to speculate, I feel this thread had run its course after post #14 and none of this helps the OP.

The only way we could really help the OP further is if he gave us full details of what is on the MG11 form (can he find that out?) or exactly what questions were asked and exactly what answers he gave, along with the contents of the letter he gets from FGW. This information is best sent as a private message than on a forum available to anyone.

 

[RPI]

The fact that the OP lied is enough intent, the prosecutor will put to the court that "had the inspector allowed the accused go by believing his story then the correct rail fare would have been avoided", therefore by the actions of the accused it was his intent to avoid his fare, it doesn't matter at what point in the day the intent occured.

 

[yorkie]

The fact that the OP lied is enough intent, the prosecutor will put to the court that "had the inspector allowed the accused go by believing his story then the correct rail fare would have been avoided", therefore by the actions of the accused it was his intent to avoid his fare, it doesn't matter at what point in the day the intent occured.

I agree. I feel that the OP is best aiming to settle out of court. If FGW insists on taking it to court, it would be a difficult case to fight, and a good experienced lawyer would be essential to have much hope in being found not guilty. There's not much more to be said, and we can't help the OP further without much more information on exactly what was said and noted on the MG11 form.

 

[Stigy]

I disagree. Evidence of the intent to avoid payment, under the 1889 act is there, and no person can be in breach of Byelaw 18 in this situation, as Nick W said (but I don't think this helps the OP as it is not relevant)

Where's the evidence? He said he'd bought a ticket but can't find it. Therefore he can be in breach of 18.2. I agree that we don't know all the facts, and alot of what's been said is speculation, but we really don't know what ticket the OP states he once had. Can a RRA offence be proved by actions only, and without thorough questioning, unless they jumped a ticket barrier or something blatent? Given that the OP chose not to stick around, I'd hazard a guess that not many questions were asked. The TOC I work for would most likely go for the Byelaw as it's easier to prove than the RRA offence.

But the OP alleges that one of the statements by the RPI was "you couldnt have bought the ticket as the ticket machines in that station will not be working with cash now."

Of course, he could have bought online, or be using the return portion. There would, for sure, have been more to the conversation to this, and we do not know what the OP said either immediately before or after the RPI came out with this.

Indeed.

I can't see a prosecution under anything other than the 1889 act, and I don't see that strict liability has anything to do with it, to be honest.

Strict Liability has alot to do with it if being prosecuted under anything other than the 1889 Act.

 

[yorkie]

Where's the evidence? He said he'd bought a ticket but can't find it. Therefore he can be in breach of 18.2. I agree that we don't know all the facts, and alot of what's been said is speculation, but we really don't know what ticket the OP states he once had. Can a RRA offence be proved by actions only, and without thorough questioning, unless they jumped a ticket barrier or something blatent? Given that the OP chose not to stick around, I'd hazard a guess that not many questions were asked. The TOC I work for would most likely go for the Byelaw as it's easier to prove than the RRA offence.

I find this very concerning. If you can PM me contact details with the person who makes such decisions I may be interested to speak to them.

If there is evidence of him lying, then the TOC should either settle out of court or prosecute under the 1889 act. If that evidence does not exist, they really should have collected the fare. Nothing else would be appropriate, and the OP cannot be in breach of the byelaw for reasons already explained, and if TOCs are acting in this way I am concerned and want further information so it can be investigated.

 

[Stigy]

I find this very concerning. If you can PM me contact details with the person who makes such decisions I may be interested to speak to them.

If there is evidence of him lying, then the TOC should either settle out of court or prosecute under the 1889 act. If that evidence does not exist, they really should have collected the fare. Nothing else would be appropriate, and the OP cannot be in breach of the byelaw for reasons already explained, and if TOCs are acting in this way I am concerned and want further information so it can be investigated.

I don't see an issue with downgrading what borders a RRA offence, to a Byelaw if all the points to prove have been thoroughly exhausted but to no avail by the staff member. Remember, burden of proof for RRA offences are far greater than for Byelaws. On reading this again, I can see your point about the lying, but assuming the MG11 form contained just a statement of facts and not a Q&A session, I'm not sure a 5.3(a) could be proved in court. I also appreciate that this one is a little different in that there were no facilities available to buy a ticket when the OP says they did. Maybe use 18.1? . Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. And no, I won't be PM'ing you the details of the company I work for, or the person with whom the grading of such offences lies.

 

[tony_mac]

I also appreciate that this one is a little different in that there were no facilities available to buy a ticket when the OP says they did. Maybe use 18.1?

and 18.3 says, if there were no facilities available, then no offence was committed. It doesn't say 'if there were no facilities, but the passenger didn't know that.'

As far as I can see, lying to the RPI is not a byelaw offence (other than if it was name and address).

It obviously suggests dishonesty, which would bring it into the RRA.

But, if he said 'I lost my ticket, but I will buy a new one anyway' - then I can't see that any offence was actually committed.

It is unclear what was actually said, but it may have been something along those lines -

I chose to stick with the story and said I will pay the fine if you want.

(I am assuming 'fine' means 'penalty fare')

 

[Nick W]

It would be very helpful if all those who reply could actually read what the law says!

Railway Byelaw 18 is strict liability, meaning that the OP could have pole vaulted over the station offence and would not have been liable as there was no way to buy a ticket at his starting station.

Could someone shed light on why lying proves intend to evade the fare rather than simply the OP wanting to pay for a ticket?

I think this is one of the situation where the railway's inflexibility about when a customer pays (compared to the days when you could pay the same fare on arrival at a station) could work in the OP's favour. Here the OP can claim that he was willing to pay a fare or even a penalty fare, but didn't want a criminal record and it would be difficult for prosecution to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt! I dare say that the railway might not consider seeking prosecution - I think they best can achieve is the recovery of debts and administrative costs in their recovery.

 

[yorkie]

A penalty fare is not a fine and no-one issued with one is being accused of avoiding or attempting to avoid paying their fare. A fine is a quite different matter.

That said, the high price of some long distance Anytime fares or penalty fares can be so high that people refer to them as a "fine", but this is incorrect. It really depends on what was said, but when someone asks to pay a fine that does sound like an admission of guilt (but whether a court would consider it an admission of guilt or not I have no idea).

I think certain TOCs, such as SWT, are acting incorrectly and dubiously. They think they can issue penalty fares for finishing short, but a customer won a case against them. They think they can deny the existence of the Routeing Guide, too. There are also many more incidents not reported on this forum (some info here). If they are also prosecuting people for offences they physically cannot have committed, then that is yet another concern to add to the growing list. No wonder they are reluctant to talk to us.

I think they best can achieve is the recovery of debts and administrative costs in their recovery.

I suspect they can achieve rather more than that, to be honest. However we can only speculate based on the extremely limited information (about the exchange between the OP and the RPI) provided by the OP.

 

[Flamingo]

The days "when you could buy a ticket on arrival" if travelling when there was the opportunity to buy ended before Queen Victoria left the throne. It's not something new.

If the OP had said "I've come from X, I need a ticket", that would have been the end of it.

The OP was given the option to pay, he lied. His reason for lying is not relevant, as if the lie had been accepted he would have avoided paying the fare. Revenue staff are good, but not mind-readers (although one can make an accurate guess sometimes!) On reflection he has decided that this was stupid and wants to make restitution - good for him, and I do hope that he is able to sort it out.

It doesn't absolve him from a requirement to pay, or negate the offence.