No ticket to ride?!

[robwilford78]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to this site... I stumbled upon some of the posts on here regarding being caught without a valid ticket for travel. As this has happened to me today I thought I'd share my horror story.

I've been traveling in and out of Manchester now for fourteen years and always had tickets... from season's to singles so never had a problem. My train station I travel from in the mornings is always unmanned but usually I can get one on the train, unfortunately the ticket collector didn't come around and I had to get off at my destination without a valid ticket. By this time my mind was elsewhere and forgot to join the queue at the ticket desk and was about to walk off when I remembered.

Walked back to the ticket desk which was less than a few feet, when a guard grabbed me and said I couldn't buy one because I had missed my opportunity to do so by walking past. I wasn't stopped in the first place and was just trying to correct my mistake by going back. He then said I would have to wait until I received my letter from North Western before I could make my plea. Thought it was a little unfair as i tried explaining myself and was a honest mistake.

Anyway I'm told I could get a criminal record for this, I don't mind about the fine because I appreciate that it is an offense to travel without a ticket but just hope they judge my case fairly as I've a family to think off.

Can anybody shed some light on this, would love to know your thoughts and what the procedure on what will happen.

Thanks

 

[sonic2009]

Hello.. Did you recieve any documentation? Like a Penalty Fare's Notice?

 

[WestCoast]

Hello.. Did you recieve any documentation? Like a Penalty Fare's Notice?

Northern Rail do not operate a penalty fare scheme anywhere on their network.

robwilford78, What station did this happen at, was it Manchester Piccadilly by any chance? And by guard do you mean security guard? A "ticket collector" is known as a "Guard" in railway speak.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What will happen next depends on what exctly happened during your 'encounter' with the officer on the station. Perhaps you were asked to give a statement, perhaps you filled in your own name and address and confirmed it. Perhaps not. Perhaps the officer was uniformed and has a name and employer? Perhaps you were supplied with a document?
It would help to know exactly what was said and to whom.

Its also regrettable that you didn't take the opportunity to find the guard on your train to make your payment when it would have been most appropriate to do so.

forgot to join the queue at the ticket desk and was about to walk off when I remembered.

Walked back to the ticket desk which was less than a few feet, when a guard grabbed me and said I couldn't buy one because I had missed my opportunity to do so by walking past.

This is interesting. Did you really turn back in 'less than a few feet' of your own volition and without seeing the officer, or would (s)he have reasonably concluded that you turned round on seeing them?
Having 1. not bought a ticket at the origin state, 2. not sought the on-board guard to buy a ticket on the train, and 3. not going straight to 'the ticket desk', will all add up to Fare Evasion in Northern Rail's analysis.

You can expect a letter from Northern Rail's prosecutions department which will a) advise you of the severity of the offence and the possible penalties (which may include a Criminal Conviction), and b) asking you to make a statement of facts (your version of events), which they will use to decide what action (if any) to take. It might be 3 or 4 weeks before you recieve it.
Sadly, they treat this in a very biassed manner - they WILL try to find any loophole in your written statement and your statement to the officer that incriminates you, and once they know what your statement is, they will then decide what offence to prosecute.

It may help for you to pre-empt this with a prompt apology and offer your fare and a modest admin fee, but it may be rejected.
If you have a solicitor, don't waste any time and ask them to find a partner who is familiar with the (extraordinarily arcane) particulars of Railway Ticketing law, who should prepare a response for you.

Whatever you do, don't hope this matter will just fade away.

- - - - - -EDIT - - - -

The offence will either be under S.5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, or, the Railway Byelaws 17 or 18.

 

[WestCoast]

Its also regrettable that you didn't take the opportunity to find the guard on your train to make your payment when it would have been most appropriate to do so.

Don't really see that a valid argument for fare evasion. How do you do that if they aren't doing tickets for whatever reason, people can't be expected to find the guard. These are local services where time is short between stops, the guard may be constantly busy doing doors, filling out forms e.t.c.

1. not bought a ticket at the origin state,

At an unmanned station? err

If GMPTE/Northern want to do something about fare evasion perhaps equipping stations with machines/offices would be a good start! Merseyrail manage it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So many scumbags get away with not paying, and honest people who always try to buy a ticket in the first place get in trouble!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Don't really see that a valid argument for fare evasion. How do you do that if they aren't doing tickets for whatever reason, people can't be expected to find the guard. These are local services where time is short between stops, the guard may be constantly busy doing doors, filling out forms e.t.c.

I will conclude that you do not work in Northern Rail's prosecutions Dept.

BTW. I did NOT say I thought it was "a valid argument for fare evasion" and don't think that my post presents it as such. I said it was "regrettable"; with hindsight; as it would have averted the equally "regrettable" incident on the destination station.

 

[WestCoast]

I will conclude that you do not work in Northern Rail's prosecutions Dept.

BTW. I did NOT say I thought it was "a valid argument for fare evasion" and don't think that my post presents it as such. I said it was "regrettable"; with hindsight; as it waould have averted the equally "regrettable" incident on the destination station.

Sorry, it was completely the wrong choice of words - I meant not seeking the guard shouldn't be taken as fare evasion.

Of course I don't work in Northern Rail's prosecutions department, but how exactly are you supposed to buy a ticket from a station with no ticket facilities? Then how can you buy a ticket from a guard seemingly not doing revenue duties? Yes, it's a set of unfortunate circumstances but I'd make a big deal about this if I was in the OPs situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would still be curious to know which station this was at, so I can imagine the situation.

My guess is still Manchester Piccadilly platforms 13/14, as there is a little desk where you can buy tickets and G4S stand across the bridge checking. If you walked past one of those people, then I see why you have been stopped.

 

[Greenback]

We do need more information before we can offer any sort of meaningful advice.

In the meantime, I will say this. It is not incumbent on a passenger to seek out a guard or other member of on train staff if they board at a station with no ticket buying facilities, no matter what some TOC's would like you to believe!

 

[yorkie]

You could say it's equally regrettable that the guard didn't come round, that the customers' station is unstaffed, that we don't have smart ticketing, etc, but certainly there is no requirement to seek the guard, indeed on many lines (quite probably such as the line the OP was on) the guard may not want a queue of people preventing his movement through the train and/or customers may not want people 'queue jumping', however unless we know the station, the time, the line it is difficult to say, other than the customer did absolutely nothing wrong on board the train.

The problem is purely what happened after the passenger alighted from the train, it would be interesting to know what platform this was on, and exactly where the customer was walking and exactly the position of staff, etc. It is difficult for me to envisage it but it sounds like he walked past someone selling tickets then encountered people checking tickets (perhaps in plain clothes/disguise?).

It's really impossible to give advice to the OP as the detail is lacking. Whether the detail will assist the OP or not, we do not know.

 

[Old Timer]

We do need more information before we can offer any sort of meaningful advice.

In the meantime, I will say this. It is not incumbent on a passenger to seek out a guard or other member of on train staff if they board at a station with no ticket buying facilities, no matter what some TOC's would like you to believe!

It does mitigate any interpretation being made of an 1889 Intent being formed however. Historically the Courts have taken the view that a reasonable person would seek the Guard to offer payment.

I remember a successful Prosecution of a passenger who would ONLY offer the fare if and when a Guard came around, otherwise he would travel and avoid the fare. We argued successfully that an 1889 Intent was proven by his repeated actions of only paying when challenged.

Travelling through to destination reduces a defence against an 1889 intent interpretation even more, and remember that an Offence has almost certainly been committed by the time the person boards the train without a ticket.

The onus remains upon the passenger to obtain a valid ticket before travelling.

Unfortunately the explanation given by the OP is one we hear over and over again, a bit like the Police being told that the Car Insurance HAD been paid. It is a text book excuse wheeled out by serial evaders. When time and time again this proves to be wrong, one finds it difficult to accept a "genuine" case.

 

[Greenback]

That would be very true IF there were ticket purchasing facilities at the origin station.

In days gone by far more stations had manual ticket barriers and ticket offices, with far longer opening hours than is the case at many today.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

At an unmanned station? err

I really can't see where your line of reasoning is taking us.

Yes, of course Northern could do themselves and passengers a very valuable service by operating staffed stations. But they don't. And the Acts under which the OP is at risk of being prosecuted are absolutely silent on the matter of staffing Ticket Offices.
I remain unmoved, the OP asked what happens and what our assessment of the facts are. Until we have more to go on, then we are stuck with the meager facts in the initial post, and the law, and Northern's track record.

It is a sad fact, that there is a legal obligation under S18 for a passenger to be in possession of a valid ticket to travel. There is no legal obligation for Northern to operate a ticket office at their smaller stations. There is no legal obligation for Northern's guards to seek out ticketless travellers. Northern's Prosecutions Dept. will not be sympathetic to these omissions and they will not assess them as a defence that assures the OP of a good night's sleep. (Whether we like it or not).

Or are you able to assure the OP that they have a certain defence?

 

[WestCoast]

Travelling through to destination reduces a defence against an 1889 intent interpretation even more, and remember that an Offence has almost certainly been committed by the time the person boards the train without a ticket.

The onus remains upon the passenger to obtain a valid ticket before travelling.

I can support this action, but surely this argument falls down if the passenger cannot purchase a ticket before boarding?

On a route I travel on frequently, which is operated by Northern Rail, all stations except three have no ticket purchasing whatsover, no passenger is reasonably expected to seek the guard, no one is prosecuted if they do not. If the guard does not come around it is assumed there is an issue with machine or they have other issues to deal with.

I really can't see where your line of reasoning is taking us.

I apologise for any confusion but it was just a simple response to your comment that said "Having 1. not bought a ticket at the origin state.............will all add up to Fare Evasion in Northern Rail's analysis".

I was simply commenting that this would not be a factor in Northern Rail's case analysis as the OP could not possibly purchase a ticket before boarding. I was not sure that you had acknowledged that fact in the story.

 

[Greenback]

It's impossible to assure the Op they have a good defence in the absence of all the relevant facts! I suspect they may not have much of a defence at all, but that doesn't stop me from feeling that TOC's would have it far too easy if there was any sort of rule that stated passengers had to go and find the guard to sell them a ticket when boarding at an unstaffed station with no ticket buying facilities.

I accept there is no legal obligation for the guard to seek out ticketless passengers, but at the same time there is no legal obligation for the ticketless passenger to seek out the guard. However, they must purchase a ticket at the first available opportunity, without delaying their journey, and that is the crux of the issue here.

 

[table38]

My thoughts... it would help if we knew the station

In my experience at both Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria, the ticket desk is more or less immediately just "rail side" before the line of people checking tickets (and the queue for the ticket desk is just before that!), eg.

---------+ * * +----------------
DESK
q
q
q

where * is usually two or more people checking tickets. Again, in my experience, if you got as far as * without a ticket, they would ask you to show your ticket, which you couldn't do, so they would send you back to the queue to pay for one. If you are a regular traveller you should have realised your lack of ticket before you got to that virtual "gate line".

However... if you somehow got past the "gate line" without a ticket, all bets are off.

I'm sure the NCoC used to say something about "buying a ticket at your earliest opportunity".

Now Section 2 is a little confusing, but if there is no ticket office or machine and you can buy a ticket on the train, then that's what it tells you to do. Maybe I missed a bit, but as I read it, it does not say you must buy a ticket on the train, nor does it say anything about an obligation to buy one at your destination.

I imagine that the "human" check works in exactly the same way as the barriers at Oxford Road; no ticket, can't get out, so go buy one.

But if you made it past the physical barrier by jumping over, or made it past the human checkers (who do make it quite clear that's what they are there for by yelling "tickets please" every 2 seconds), then IMHO that is evasion.

The bottom line is, should it get that far, you could go to court and explain your position, as is your right. Think what happened and ask yourself if you could demonstrate that you behaved reasonably.

IANAL. E&OE etc.

 

[Greenback]

On a route I travel on frequently, which is operated by Northern Rail, all stations except three have no ticket purchasing whatsover, no passenger is reasonably expected to seek the guard, no one is prosecuted if they do not. If the guard does not come around it is assumed there is an issue with machine or they have other issues to deal with.

This is precisely the situation at Gowerton, which I use frequently. If I was to board without a ticket, I would buy one at Swansea - if I walked a few steps past the ticket office to pick up a Metro on arrival, without leaving the station, I would not expect to be prosecuted. If however, I was leaving the station, that might be a different kettle of fish!

 

[yorkie]

It does mitigate any interpretation being made of an 1889 Intent being formed however. Historically the Courts have taken the view that a reasonable person would seek the Guard to offer payment.

I remember a successful Prosecution of a passenger who would ONLY offer the fare if and when a Guard came around, otherwise he would travel and avoid the fare. We argued successfully that an 1889 Intent was proven by his repeated actions of only paying when challenged..

From an unstaffed station?! I think not.

I think that this discussion about buying (or otherwise) on board is totally at a tangent and not relevant, nor helpful to the OP.

All that matters is that the OP is accused of being given an opportunity to pay at Manchester, which he allegedly declined, and was then apparently caught. The way the OP describes it, does sound difficult to believe, and I suspect there is more to this. The OP should seek legal advice immediately.

 

[WestCoast]

From an unstaffed station?! I think not.

This is my point that I have been trying to get across, all I meant before was that this wouldn't be a factor in the prosecution. That was it, no more. The legal requirement to buy before boarding doesn't apply to unstaffed stations.

I agree that none of the seek or don't seek guard is relevant in this case, all that matters is what occurred at the destination station.

 

[Greenback]

This is my point that I have been trying to get across, all I meant before was that this wouldn't be a factor in the prosecution. That was it, no more. The legal requirement to buy before boarding doesn't apply to unstaffed stations.

Indeed, you are right, it can't apply where no facilities are available!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that none of the seek or don't seek guard is relevant in this case, all that matters is what occurred at the destination station.

Agreed!

 

[Old Timer]

From an unstaffed station?! I think not.

I think that this discussion about buying (or otherwise) on board is totally at a tangent and not relevant, nor helpful to the OP.

All that matters is that the OP is accused of being given an opportunity to pay at Manchester, which he allegedly declined, and was then apparently caught. The way the OP describes it, does sound difficult to believe, and I suspect there is more to this. The OP should seek legal advice immediately.

I am simply making the point that at a station which is normally manned, that the Prosecution could make the point that the OP should have attempted to buy on the train. The OP has some 14 years of travelling and so would be expected to be more aware than say someone travelling for the first time.

Unfortunately the actions of the OP really do fall into the classic pattern of deliberate fare evasion that the Magistrates will have been exposed to time and time again.

In saying this I suggest nothing, but simply want to make the point that the issue is clearly serious as you have pointed out quite correctly, and that a defence really will hinge on what happened and what was said at the time.

 

[WestCoast]

I am simply making the point that at a station which is normally manned, that the Prosecution could make the point that the OP should have attempted to buy on the train. The OP has some 14 years of travelling and so would be expected to be more aware than say someone travelling for the first time.

However, the OP states that the boarding station is always unmanned. The only issue is that if Northern were to prosecute everyone who boarded at one of the numerous unstaffed stations and didn't seek the guard, they would be prosecuting an awful lot of people! In fact a fair majority of those queuing to buy a ticket at Manchester stations in the peaks!

If I were to board a 333 with just one guard in the peak from an unstaffed station like Saltaire heading to Leeds, my chances of barging my way to the guard for a ticket would be slim. Hence, I would buy the ticket at the destination.

Obviously, it will work differently with other TOCs and in other areas, particularly in penalty fare zones. This is why I feel that the buy before boarding/seek guard issue is irrelevant in the OPs specific case.

 

[RPI]

The arguement that you cannot be prosecuted for 5.3(a) when travelling from a manned station and not buying on the train by finding the guard isn't as watertight as some of you think.
I have seen many cases exactly the same that have been successfully prosecuted where the magistrate has sided with the view that the "reasonably honest" person will attempt to seek out a member of staff.
Admittedly, a lot of the cases that were successful were then ones where the accused made no effort to respond to the TOC, made no response to the summons, entered no plea and the case would have been heard in their absence.
I have helped with the prosecution of similar cases BUT never where the guard/ticket examiner has not been seen, we have always presented statements from the on train staff to say that they were checking tickets but didn't get through the whole train etc.

Which brings us back to the OP's post, I feel that we don't have all the facts here!

 

[island]

I think the question of opportunity to buy from the guard is a bit of a red herring. The OP walked past an excess office which he should have bought a ticket from!

 

[Stigy]

From what I gather the OP's station of origin is always unstaffed, but unstaffed doesn't always equate to 'no ticket issuing facilities'. Assuming there werre no ticket issuing facilities at the station of origin, I think it's safe to assume that the TOC will be seeking to prosecute under 5.3(a) RRA 1889, given the OP's account of what happened, although more information would be helpful.

If prosecuted under RRA 1889 you'll find this more serious than that of a Railway Byelaw as it's a recordable offence and will show up on the PNC (if courts communicate with the Police as they should). The potential outcome is also more serious, with potential 3-month imprisonment and £1,000 fine for subsequent offnces of the same type (realistically though you're looking at £350 plus costs, and also a criminal record). I always advised posters to wait for their initial correspondance from the TOC, and then assuming it's a letter to advise of their intention to prosecute, I advise that the OP should offer to meet all reasonable admin costs in order to remain out of court. Obviously apologise and say it was your first offence etc (if it was!), and how much a conviction would affect your employment etc. They're not obliged to accept any offers, but at least you can say you tried!

 

[table38]

I think the question of opportunity to buy from the guard is a bit of a red herring. The OP walked past an excess office which he should have bought a ticket from!

But, playing devils advocate for a minute, where does it say that's a requirement in the NCoC?

Surely the people at the "gate line" should have directed him to the ticket desk.

Wading through the NCoC:

Section 22: You must show and, if asked to do so by the staff of a Train Company or its agent, hand over for inspection a valid ticket and any relevant Railcard, photocard or other form of personal identification in accordance with Condition 15. If you do not, you will be treated as having joined a train without a ticket and the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply​

Section 4 is about Penalty Fare Zones, so not relevant.

Section 2 is fairly impenetrable, but discarding the stuff about Penalty fares again, really we are only left with:

(ii) the notices and other publications issued by the Train Company in whose train you are travelling indicate that you can buy tickets in (sic) that train.

In circumstances where (i) or (ii) apply, you only need to pay the fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately before your journey.​

So off we go to the railway byelaws where we find:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(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; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.​

Section 9(2) may be relevant here:

9(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station is via a manned or an automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the barrier in the correct manner.​

So did you pass through the manned barrier in the correct manner?

Again I think we need to know if you just walked past the queue, or made it past the "manned barrier" without a ticket, or if, as it suddenly occured to me, it was just a lone guy with an Advantix like we have at Stalybridge sometimes.

 

[robwilford78]

Firstly in reply to all of the post’s. The station at which the event happened was Salford Central, one stop before Victoria. Usually how it works is there a barrier and two guards checking tickets by the side of the ticket desk. When you pass there you walk on to the main lobby or waiting area followed by the entrance and exit doors. On the day there wasn’t a barrier and there wasn’t any guards checking tickets that i could see. To be honest, yes i have done this journey many times and i know what i should have done... go straight to the ticket desk, but on this occasion i was more focused on the day in hand so i just carried on walking. It wasn’t till i saw the ticket barrier at one of the exits in the lobby that reminded me i hadn’t got a ticket so i went back.

Now i have taken legal advice on this next part, i never intended that i wouldn’t pay for my journey, i just completely forgot to stop. It happens guy’s, when the guard grabbed me towards the ticket desk and wouldn’t let me buy a ticket, i was just trying to correct my mistake, i was no where near the ticket barrier if i had carried on walking and tried it on with the guards at the barrier or try to leg it via the other exit i could understand. They made me sign a piece of paper out of a note book, i argued my case and even a woman that catches the same train as me came to my defence, i showed tickets that proved i pay everyday for the service. I just don’t understand why if there was supposed to be guards checking tickets by the ticket desk they didn’t say anything, if you saw them it would soon remind you that you didn’t have a ticket.

 

[island]

@table38: I'm not referring to the NRCoC, I'm referring to section 5 (3) of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889.

 

[350401]

Were you interviewed under Caution? If you were, and you signed the form, then its highly likely a Travel Irregularity Form (TIR) has been issued and the matter has gone to Northerns prosecution department. If you were not cautioned, whilst not off the hook, it sounds like you signed an unpaid fares notice. If you were not cautioned, you were not warned about the danger of self-incrimination, and any decent solicitor has a fair chance of exploting that to your advantage come any trial.

 

[island]

If it was an unpaid fares notice, a copy would have been handed to the passenger.

 

[table38]

@table38: I'm not referring to the NRCoC, I'm referring to section 5 (3) of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889.

OK so that's:

(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; or.
(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or.
(c)Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,.
he shall be liable... ​

Fair enough, but given the OP didn't refuse to pay, had the means to pay, offered to pay when challenged, did not cross the manned barrier or leave the station by another means, I'd say you'd have a job proving "intent".

I still think Section 2 of the NCoC could do with a bit of tidying up (if only the bit about buying a ticket in the train). IMHO If it still said you need to buy a ticket "at your earliest opportunity" then the OP would be "guilty as charged"