No ticket to ride?!

[Stigy]

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.

An interview under caution, whilst advantageous, isn't a necessity. The facts of the matter can still be reported in the same MG11 format as an interview under caution would be. Having said that, you'd be hard pushed to get a 5.3(a) without a caution, because the questions asked would be limited.

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".

It all depends on the questions asked and the answers given. The very fact that the OP approached the barriers and turned round, although not necessarily accurate, might suggest to a good RPI or other staff, that he/she saw the barriers and to avoid payment, turned around to either find another exit or rebopard a train so as to avoid detection. All this would usually be bottomed out in the interview.

 

[Yew]

On a slight tangent, but still rather relevent. at lincoln station, the "excess fares office" is actually the other side of the ticket barriers, so the earliest oppotuntiy to pay could actually be in the ticket office after you have passed the barrier.

 

[table38]

It all depends on the questions asked and the answers given. The very fact that the OP approached the barriers and turned round, although not necessarily accurate, might suggest to a good RPI or other staff, that he/she saw the barriers and to avoid payment, turned around to either find another exit or rebopard a train so as to avoid detection. All this would usually be bottomed out in the interview.

Tenuous. I would argue that, on seeing the manual barrier, my client reached for his ticket (that we can demonstrate that he normally purchases) and only at that point remembered that the opportunity to purchase one on the train did not arise, and he would need return to the ticket window, and was prevented in doing so by an over-zealous member of staff.

If he hadn't offered to pay, or did not have the means to pay, or had boarded another train, or legged it across the tracks and over the fence you might have a point It'd certainly have made it a lot easier to prove "intent".

Sadly (having personal experience of G4S throwing their weight around and making up their own rules) I'm almost intrigued enough by this case to make a visit to Salford Cresent and observe what is actually going on.

 

[yorkie]

Sadly (having personal experience of G4S throwing their weight around and making up their own rules) I'm almost intrigued enough by this case to make a visit to Salford Cresent and observe what is actually going on.

Indeed. I think the railway is guilty of what I, and a reasonable person, may consider entrapment, possibly at Salford, Southall and perhaps other places too. If the courts don't agree then that then my confidence in our legal system is not great.

 

[Ferret]

Table 38, I'm sorry but Judicial Precedent will come into play here. There have been umpteen successful prosecutions for intent to avoid the fare where people have walked past a ticket office at their destination. I'd imagine it will be a simple formality if it reaches Court.

 

[Stigy]

Tenuous. I would argue that, on seeing the manual barrier, my client reached for his ticket (that we can demonstrate that he normally purchases) and only at that point remembered that the opportunity to purchase one on the train did not arise, and he would need return to the ticket window, and was prevented in doing so by an over-zealous member of staff.

If he hadn't offered to pay, or did not have the means to pay, or had boarded another train, or legged it across the tracks and over the fence you might have a point It'd certainly have made it a lot easier to prove "intent".

Which is why I said it all depends on what questions were asked, and how they were answered. Unfortunately if the RPI asked "If I wasn't here today, and there were no ticket barriers, what would you have done?" (or words to that effect) and the OP replies "I would have left the station" (or words to that effect), and followed up for clarity, by another question from the RPI to the effect of "With that in mind, is it fair to say that you would not have bought a rail ticket for your journey today, had you not have been stopped by staff?", one would have unwittingly admitted a certain amount of intention. The only thing getting the OP out of the intention would be if the RPI asked "Was it your intention to avoid payment of your rail fare today?" and I'd like to think that the OP would then obviously say "No" and explain himself further.

The difference between the questioning technique above, and the same technique used on a passenger who probably would have been intentionally out to evade their rail fare, is that I don't believe the OP set out to evade their fare, and it was a lapse in consentration, therefore I, as well as any other staff I'd hope, would be able to get the passenger to cough to their intent to avoid payment rather easily. I'd be inclined, after ascertaining that this probably was a lapse in consentration, not even to blatently ask about intent to avoid payment. If I wasn't saure, or didn't believe the OP, I most certainly would ask the question. At the end of the day, that's what the court system is there for, as if the alleged offender doesn't believe they've done wrong, they're entitled to a fair trial, and can plead their case to the Magistrates.

 

[table38]

Table 38, I'm sorry but Judicial Precedent will come into play here. There have been umpteen successful prosecutions for intent to avoid the fare where people have walked past a ticket office at their destination. I'd imagine it will be a simple formality if it reaches Court.

Interesting, I'll certainly do some more research, although I'm sure you are aware a case would have to go to at least a Crown Court in order to create a precedent, and I'd be suprised if many ever get that far.

Also remember that if they intend to prosecute as a criminal act, the standard of proof would require to be "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "balance of probabilities" even in a Magistrates Court.

If it was me, I'd have my day in court, but I'm not suggesting for a moment that the OP takes that risk on my dodgy advice.

 

[MikeWh]

Let's just remind ourselves about what was said in the original post:

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.

In view of what is being said by persons on here, I would make urgent enquiries about a copy of the CCTV from the concourse at the time of this incident. If it shows you being removed from the vicinity of the desk while clearly intending to purchase your ticket then I hope that the prosecutions department will see sense and drop it. Don't wait for the letter though, in case the CCTV has been wiped by then. Make a request as soon as possible.

 

[Ferret]

Not an idea without merit that Mike. I'd say the CCTV would need to show the OP 'realising' his mistake rather than being accosted by an RPI for him to launch any kind of defence.

 

[robwilford78]

I just think from what i have herd the punishment is harsh, if i was waving a fake pass and blatantly refusing to pay or had no intention off then maybe. It sounds like they will just throw the book at me. I don’t remember being interviewed under caution, more pulled to one side and ask why i didn’t take the opportunity to pay the first time, can’t remember if i signed anything but they definitely took my details. Do i have to wait for my letter to arrive or is there a number i can call to talk to someone. Also thinking of printing all of my bank statement to show the regularity of purchasing tickets, not sure if this will help but at least it may show that I’m not a ticket dodger!

 

[yorkie]

Do i have to wait for my letter to arrive or is there a number i can call to talk to someone.

You could write them a letter with a cheque to pay the fare plus an admin fee (effectively offering to settle out of court), but I don't know if Northern are keen to do this. Evidence with other cases suggest First Group TOCs are more keen than Northern, to settle out of court (sorry I know that's not good news for you)...

It's possible that nothing will happen. For example someone here reported ages ago that FCC were threatening to prosecute him for being in 1st class on a Std ticket (and refusing to pay a Penalty Fare), however FCC simply never got back to him (after he offered to pay) and simply dropped the case, and it's been long enough now that I am confident they won't do anything about it. I am aware of other cases where UPFNs have not been pursued but the customer was never told.

It's more likely that Northern will pursue it though, they have a habit of such things. They even prosecuted someone over 5 pence once (and lost as the person they prosecuted got a good lawyer!)

 

[robwilford78]

You could write them a letter with a cheque to pay the fare plus an admin fee (effectively offering to settle out of court), but I don't know if Northern are keen to do this. Evidence with other cases suggest First Group TOCs are more keen than Northern, to settle out of court (sorry I know that's not good news for you)..

.

Could be worth a try, looked at there website and can only find one main address, i take it that it would need to go to a specialist department but can't find anything that leads my to fines or fare evasion

 

[table38]

You may be able to get some free professional advice.

For example, if you are at college or university, go and get some legal advice via the Students Union.

Even Citizens Advice might be worth a shot, on their website it says:

There is a criminal offence of travelling on a train with the intention of avoiding paying the fare. If you are charged with this offence, you should get further advice from a specialist adviser, for example at a Citizens Advice bureau.​

 

[Stigy]

Could be worth a try, looked at there website and can only find one main address, i take it that it would need to go to a specialist department but can't find anything that leads my to fines or fare evasion

I'd wait for them to contact you. Why remind them of what happened? They won't know who you are or what your case is until the RPI submits their report anyway, and offering to meet their costs can be done at any time until the court date, although as soon as you receive their letter would be best practice!

 

[yorkie]

robwilford78 - you have a private message, please go to 'Your Notifications' and click Unread Private Messages.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Table 38, I'm sorry but Judicial Precedent will come into play here. There have been umpteen successful prosecutions for intent to avoid the fare where people have walked past a ticket office at their destination. I'd imagine it will be a simple formality if it reaches Court.

NO!
Batt. too low to expand now, but that would be my arg to the Mags.

 

[RPI]

It's more likely that Northern will pursue it though, they have a habit of such things. They even prosecuted someone over 5 pence once (and lost as the person they prosecuted got a good lawyer!)

If we're thinking of the same case, was it not that the defendant was given a total discharge? which techically is still a conviction but with no punishment?

 

[WestCoast]

It's more likely that Northern will pursue it though, they have a habit of such things. They even prosecuted someone over 5 pence once (and lost as the person they prosecuted got a good lawyer!)

Yes, I've heard of similar amounts all under £5! :roll: In my opinion, they should spend some of the funds for prosecution on making it easier to buy a ticket in the first place! It won't happen, but some more ticket machines which are enabled for Ticket On Departure and peak-time ticket offices or RPIs who can sell tickets at smaller stations might be a able to prevent some of these cases! Then they could also be stricter with not offering discounts onboard, I've found them to the most lenient TOC when it comes to this. Could actually improve revenues in the longer term...

 

[b0b]

In my opinion, they should spend some of the funds for prosecution on making it easier to buy a ticket in the first place!

as we've seen in another case, its the taxpayer that pays the costs if the TOC loses!

 

[Ferret]

NO!
Batt. too low to expand now, but that would be my arg to the Mags.

I look forward to you expanding on this one!

 

[yorkie]

If we're thinking of the same case, was it not that the defendant was given a total discharge? which techically is still a conviction but with no punishment?

Sorry, it was 10p. And, no.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4697212.stm

Miss Burton was cleared of travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare of 10p and with the intention of avoiding payment thereof.

She was also acquitted of giving a false address to the ticket inspector who stopped her.

Earlier Simon Revell, for Northern Rail, said the prosecution for the 10p fare and £100 costs was justified.

"These 10ps add up and amount, in the last year for which there were figures, to £210m nationwide."

According to Simon Revell, there are 2.1 billion 10p dodges annually. That's 5.7 million underpaying by 10p per day. So about a tenth of the UK population does a 10p underpayment every day. Somehow, I doubt that. I also suspect they are conveniently ignoring overcharges

Based on this evidence, I would suggest that Maths qualifications may be lacking at Northern Rail.

Also the figure of £210m is made up. I could make up a similar figure as an amount that TOCs are overcharging passengers. Two can play at that game! All we need is sympathetic MPs and perhaps we could pass a law to say that TOC managers who are responsible for charging people more than what is reasonably considered "correct" would get criminal records? Now that would be nice! Sadly justice is rather lacking when it comes to rail travel and that will never happen.

The day that someone who overcharges a passenger should be prosecuted, is the day that I will accept that someone who underpays by 10p should be prosecuted. Also, taxpayers money should not be used, it should be the TOC who pays.

 

[Ferret]

Not sure it's just maths skills that are lacking there Yorkie! Common sense suggests that you wouldn't prosecute over 10p! Entirely predictable that a grumpy Magistrate would see that case as a waste of his time!

 

[yorkie]

Not sure it's just maths skills that are lacking there Yorkie! Common sense suggests that you wouldn't prosecute over 10p! Entirely predictable that a grumpy Magistrate would see that case as a waste of his time!

Well, true, I was taking that as obvious!

Though I know what their argument will be (and I'll pre-empt any RPIs by saying this now ) and that will be that the main charge was giving a false name & address. I have to say she did pretty well to get out of that one and I think her lawyer must have been pretty good. Though her argument about moving addresses is a valid argument that a random opportunist dodger wouldn't have, and no doubt she had to prove the change of address to the court.

But yes, I agree it defies common sense. The fact that Northern can pursue such ludicrous claims at taxpayers expense is disturbing. If it was their own money they were spending on frivolous claims, then it wouldn't bother me so much, as the problem would go away as they simply wouldn't be pursuing such claims. I also think there's some arrogance by some TOCs as they assume they can win every time. Many people don't get a decent lawyer and so the TOCs win some cases that really they have no moral right to win. They thought this case would be one of those, no doubt!

 

[evil_hippo]

According to Simon Revell, there are 2.1 billion 10p dodges annually. That's 5.7 million 10p dodges per day. So about a tenth of the UK population does a 10p dodge every day. Somehow, I doubt that.

I'm sympathetic to what you're arguing, but I must say that that's just a silly interpretation. Of course anyone taking him seriously would understand that by "those 10ps" he meant the many small and insignificant fare dodges that take place, but add up.

I could make up a similar figure as an amount that TOCs are overcharging passengers.

Absolutely agreed. That's why I think that you can never, ever call fare dodging a moral issue - rail fares are just so far from what can be considered "fair" or "moral". A system that deliberately and explicitly excludes the less wealthy in society from rail travel (a.k.a. "pricing off demand", on the basis of "willingness to pay", intrinsic to which is ability to pay) is fundamentally immoral.

 

[WestCoast]

as we've seen in another case, its the taxpayer that pays the costs if the TOC loses!

So in effect the TOCs have nothing to lose, except decency and reputation by prosecuting people over ludicrous amounts (Northern seem to be the worst offender).

 

[Ferret]

So in effect the TOCs have nothing to lose, except decency and reputation by prosecuting people over ludicrous amounts (Northern seem to be the worst offender).

Well, they are wasting valuable manpower hours by embarking on frivolous prosecutions like the one above, so there is at least some cost to the business.

 

[robwilford78]

thank you yorkie, don't know how to send a private message at the moment so i will reply here... thank you

 

[MikeWh]

thank you yorkie, don't know how to send a private message at the moment so i will reply here... thank you

Now you've made 5 posts you should have full access to PMs. Just click on Reply under the message, or type in the quick reply box and submit.

 

[yorkie]

thank you yorkie, don't know how to send a private message at the moment so i will reply here... thank you

You're welcome! And, you can't reply until you have at least 5 posts (sorry, should have explained that!) now you have 5 posts you are a 'Member' rather than a 'New Member' and you can now reply
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sympathetic to what you're arguing, but I must say that that's just a silly interpretation. Of course anyone taking him seriously would understand that by "those 10ps" he meant the many small and insignificant fare dodges that take place, but add up.

Well, you are right, but he was trying to justify 10p on that basis, which is laughable. You could justify 10p for anything on such a basis. Given that I've been overcharged by more than that amount several times by TOCs (and, despite my advice to others, I normally just write it off as I can't be bothered to persue it) it's just ridiculous to go on about the 10p element. They should just admit that it is daft to prosecute over 10p. The real issue is they thought they could get her for giving a false name & address, but I don't think they can do that without also alleding she dodged a fare?

Well, they are wasting valuable manpower hours by embarking on frivolous prosecutions like the one above, so there is at least some cost to the business.

Indeed, that is true, but not as high as legal fees I'd have thought. Or maybe it's worse than we think, maybe they can reclaim the staff costs? I hope not! Perhaps someone 'in the know' can advise?

 

[MikeWh]

You're welcome! And, you can't reply until you have at least 5 posts (sorry, should have explained that!) now you have 5 posts you are a 'Member' rather than a 'New Member' and you can now reply

Looks like he has to make one more post?

1-5 New member
6+ Member