Missing Booked Train With Advance Ticket

[najaB]

Yes, there are many posters on here willing to take matters to court if it were them. Often quoting CCTV evidence. Is CCTV actually used as a defence very often?

I have no empirical evidence but my guess is that for railway offences it's more often used by the prosecution than the defence. I think this would be so because it would likely take long enough for the defence to request it that it would have already been deleted.

Most organisations keep CCTV for around 30 days - how often do people receive their notice of intent to prosecute before then?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Yes, there are many posters on here willing to take matters to court if it were them. Often quoting CCTV evidence. Is CCTV actually used as a defence very often?

Not once that I've been aware of.

 

[455driver]

Even though standard advice is to pay up and reclaim if I was stuck behind a barrier I would be inclined to refuse to pay anything and say "see you in court with the CCTV evidence".

How long were they 'stuck' behind the barrier?

5 minutes?
10?

How long does it need to be before it becomes a reason rather than an excuse?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, there are many posters on here willing to take matters to court as long as its not them actually doing it. Often quoting CCTV evidence. Is CCTV actually used as a defence very often?

I have edited that for you!

 

[Fare-Cop]

Yes, there are many posters on here willing to take matters to court if it were them. Often quoting CCTV evidence. Is CCTV actually used as a defence very often?

Like Dave, I've never experienced it.

In my experience, once a Summons is actually served and if legal advice is sought by the defendant, it is very rare for CCTV to even be mentioned as likely to provide anything of real value to the defence in the vast majority of cases.

 

[philthetube]

Yes, there are many posters on here willing to take matters to court if it were them. Often quoting CCTV evidence. Is CCTV actually used as a defence very often?

Many years ago I was travelling Sevenoaks to Whitby I was informed at Sevenoaks which trains I could catch, the lady in the ticket office wrote down the details. I boarded the relevant train and was told that my ticket was invalid on that service. The guard demanded payment of approx £60, which would have doubled the cost of my journey. I refused to pay, or to make any payment towards the cost and was threatened with removal from the train at Peterboro, I told the guard that I would only leave if asked by police officer.

The guard returned 10 mins later and asked if I could prove my Identity and if I was on the electoral roll, having checked that I was who I said I was he then wrote out a ticket for me to continue my journey.

I then, never heard a thing form East Coast, concerning this indecent, but be assured I would have fought had I needed to.

It is a bit presumptuous to say that I can say that I would fight because it is not me, without knowing me.

 

[najaB]

It is a bit presumptuous to say that I can say that I would fight because it is not me, without knowing me.

With respect, there is a bit of a difference between disagreeing with a guard on board the train and fighting a losing case in court on the basis of non-existent evidence.

 

[island]

Many years ago I was travelling Sevenoaks to Whitby I was informed at Sevenoaks which trains I could catch, the lady in the ticket office wrote down the details. I boarded the relevant train and was told that my ticket was invalid on that service. The guard demanded payment of approx £60, which would have doubled the cost of my journey. I refused to pay, or to make any payment towards the cost and was threatened with removal from the train at Peterboro, I told the guard that I would only leave if asked by police officer.

The guard returned 10 mins later and asked if I could prove my Identity and if I was on the electoral roll, having checked that I was who I said I was he then wrote out a ticket for me to continue my journey.

I then, never heard a thing form East Coast, concerning this indecent, but be assured I would have fought had I needed to.

It is a bit presumptuous to say that I can say that I would fight because it is not me, without knowing me.

And that has what exactly to do with you being called out for giving people bad advice about the availability of CCTV evidence?

 

[philthetube]

In this case, the problem was immediately known about and cctv evidence should have still existed at the time, that is the time to request it is preserved and failure for this to happen would be prejudicial to and future case.

There is also an interesting point that, apart from rail by-laws retailers have to operate under laws as well. Any goods sold must be suitable for the purpose for which they were sold, if the ticket did not allow access to the train it could be argued that that ticket was not suitable for the job which the seller knew it would be required to do.

In my experience, in a case which is not clear cut the toc's do not want to get involved in cases which may go against them and bring them negative publicity.

 

[najaB]

Any goods sold must be suitable for the purpose for which they were sold, if the ticket did not allow access to the train it could be argued that that ticket was not suitable for the job which the seller knew it would be required to do.

A ticket is not goods.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . , if the ticket did not allow access to the train it could be argued that that ticket was not suitable for the job which the seller knew it would be required to do.

This is very bad advice.

A railway ticket is evidence of a contract. No more and no less.
A contract freely entered into by both parties, and creating binding obligations on the Railway Companies to convey the passenger, though with no obligation on the passenger to travel at all.

Any failure by the Railway Companies to convey the passenger as contracted will lead to, either, some alternative resolution, or a breach of Contract.

Comparing contracts for rail transport with the sale of consumer goods and services is nearly always going to lead to bad advice to somone seeking help on here.

 

[Llanigraham]

In this case, the problem was immediately known about and cctv evidence should have still existed at the time, that is the time to request it is preserved and failure for this to happen would be prejudicial to and future case.

There is also an interesting point that, apart from rail by-laws retailers have to operate under laws as well. Any goods sold must be suitable for the purpose for which they were sold, if the ticket did not allow access to the train it could be argued that that ticket was not suitable for the job which the seller knew it would be required to do.

In my experience, in a case which is not clear cut the toc's do not want to get involved in cases which may go against them and bring them negative publicity.

Sorry, but there are so many errors in this posting to make it totally worthless. You keep giving "advice" that is often incorrect, often ill-advised, and potentially dangerous.
Perhaps you should look at what the experts are saying before you post.