Northern Rail fare dodge letter

[greyville]

A friend (it's not me) got a letter on Saturday from Northern Rail

You can see it in this link:

http://postimg.org/image/5bg5wlgxh/

The facts are
- she arrived at Chorley station at peak time and found the queue longer than five minutes
- she asked a member of staff if she could board without a ticket and was allowed
- there was no conductor on the train walking through to allow her to buy a ticket
- she got off at Preston and approached a member of staff to ask where she could buy a ticket (as the main entrance, where the ticket desk was, was closed for repairs)
- he accused her of 'leaving the station' and fare dodging
- she insists she had not left the station.

Has anyone got any advice?

 

[Merseysider]

Does she live near Chorley station? If so, she may wish to see if the member of staff who told her it was okay to board will be happy to back up her statement.

A defence to not having a ticket is being given permission to travel (or purchase a ticket later) by an officer [employee] of the railway.

This approach may not come to fruition however, as the member of staff involved may feel they'd be putting their neck on the line by saying a passenger can buy on board in this situation.

Has she ever been 'involved' with Northern before?

 

[30907]

I think it would help to know which platform she arrived on and what route she took towards which of the 3 exits.

 

[cuccir]

Your friend's account would be stronger with evidence. In particular, evidence of either:

• Authority given to travel at Chorley
• The queue length on the day at Chorley

I suspect that you'd have mentioned if she had these. The problem, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is that 'the man on the platform said I could travel' and 'the queue at the station was too long' are two of the most common (the two most common?) excuses made up on the hoof by people who are caught evading a fare. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but you can see the problem if there is no evidence for it.

It should also be pointed out that queues being too long is not definitively something that allows travel without buying a ticket at the first station, although it can persuade a company to seek an out of court settlement or drop action entirely.

Your friend should write with a factual account of what happened and point out Northern's commitment to serving within five minutes from their (non-binding!) Customer Charter. She should also offer, in this letter, to pay the fare owed.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

At Preston, whilst the entrance / exit at the far side of the ticket office is closed, the ticket office itself is well and truly open as normal and is accessible from the platform side as normal, so there is no reason why your friend could not have visited that office to pay, before then heading to one of the exits.

 

[greyville]

Does she live near Chorley station? If so, she may wish to see if the member of staff who told her it was okay to board will be happy to back up her statement.

A defence to not having a ticket is being given permission to travel (or purchase a ticket later) by an officer [employee] of the railway.

This approach may not come to fruition however, as the member of staff involved may feel they'd be putting their neck on the line by saying a passenger can buy on board in this situation.

Has she ever been 'involved' with Northern before?

Never.

 

[greyville]

I think it would help to know which platform she arrived on and what route she took towards which of the 3 exits.

I've asked her for clarification on this. It probably doesn't help her case.

- she got off the train at platform 1
- rather than taking the stairs towards the front of the station, she went through the underpass, turned left and then went up the ramp between platforms 3 and 4
- she says that she was going up to the member of staff (who ultimately collared her) to buy a ticket, as she's routinely seen such people with portable machines issuing tickets.

What might count against her is that, despite having that good intention (knowing she had to get home via the same route that night) she walked away from a ticket machine.

I'm sure NR's argument would be that is a demonstration of not wanting to pay - but why would she knowingly attempt to walk past a member of staff who was obviously checking tickets?

 

[greyville]

Your friend's account would be stronger with evidence. In particular, evidence of either:

• Authority given to travel at Chorley
• The queue length on the day at Chorley

I suspect that you'd have mentioned if she had these. The problem, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is that 'the man on the platform said I could travel' and 'the queue at the station was too long' are two of the most common (the two most common?) excuses made up on the hoof by people who are caught evading a fare. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but you can see the problem if there is no evidence for it.

It should also be pointed out that queues being too long is not definitively something that allows travel without buying a ticket at the first station, although it can persuade a company to seek an out of court settlement or drop action entirely.

Your friend should write with a factual account of what happened and point out Northern's commitment to serving within five minutes from their (non-binding!) Customer Charter. She should also offer, in this letter, to pay the fare owed.

Thank you - very good advice.

She is adamant that she offered to pay the fare at the point, as he whole reason for approaching the member of staff was to buy a ticket - knowing she had to get home that night.

She has done the same route for two-and-a-half years on most weekdays without any issue.

 

[greyville]

At Preston, whilst the entrance / exit at the far side of the ticket office is closed, the ticket office itself is well and truly open as normal and is accessible from the platform side as normal, so there is no reason why your friend could not have visited that office to pay, before then heading to one of the exits.

I agree with this - and have told her this, but she maintains that she genuinly intended to pay - as many people do each day - from the members of staff with portable machines.

For example, if I set off from (ticketless station) Moses Gate to Piccadilly, changing at Salford Crescent. By rights, I should go to the ticket office at SC and buy a ticket, but I never do.

It's always sufficed to buy a ticket from the barrier linking platform 13/14 with the main station at Piccadilly and I always pay. I would feel extremely hard done by if I was threatened with legal action as a result.

 

[Greenback]

Greyville, you don't need to reply to posts individually, you can use the multi quote button. This is the third red button from the left which can be found at the bottom right of each post.

If you use this the software will automatically quote each post you have marked when you hit 'Post Reply at the bottom left of the thread, and you can then insert your reply in between each one.

 

[maniacmartin]

Greyville, you don't need to reply to posts individually, you can use the multi quote button. This is the third red button from the left which can be found at the bottom right of each post.

If you use this the software will automatically quote each post you have marked when you hit 'Post Reply at the bottom left of the thread, and you can then insert your reply in between each one.

I've learnt something new today. By the way, its the second button if you're not a moderator
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This incident also has a MoneySavingExpert thread

 

[Greenback]

Yes, of course it is the second button for the OP, my bad!

 

[LateThanNever]

Thank you - very good advice.

She is adamant that she offered to pay the fare at the point, as he whole reason for approaching the member of staff was to buy a ticket - knowing she had to get home that night.

She has done the same route for two-and-a-half years on most weekdays without any issue.

If she has any records of her previous purchases such as old tickets/card receipts this will provide evidence of her honesty in paying in the past and should help her argument.

Depending on how disgusted/courageous she feels she could also mention that she has incurred considerable inconvenience as a result of complying with the permission granted by a Northern employee at the departure station, which she would like to know how they propose to mitigate ...

 

[Merseysider]

If she has any records of her previous purchases such as old tickets/card receipts this will provide evidence of her honesty in paying in the past and should help her argument.

Have we had a thread where Northern have dropped all action against an individual after hearing their side of the story even though (strictly speaking) they could have taken it further?

 

[greyville]

If she has any records of her previous purchases such as old tickets/card receipts this will provide evidence of her honesty in paying in the past and should help her argument.

Depending on how disgusted/courageous she feels she could also mention that she has incurred considerable inconvenience as a result of complying with the permission granted by a Northern employee at the departure station, which she would like to know how they propose to mitigate ...

Interestingly, I suggested that to her today. I've worked out that, across a two-and-a-half-year university course, she will have taken at least 580 journeys between those stations - all paid for, all without incident.

Her bank statement will show lots of £6.20 (or whatever the fare is) payments for that route.

 

[bb21]

Have we had a thread where Northern have dropped all action against an individual after hearing their side of the story even though (strictly speaking) they could have taken it further?

They could still take her for a Byelaw case, if she cannot establish that an authorised person allowed her to travel without a ticket, whether there is a stack of 100000 past tickets or not.

In reality, if evidence of consistent past payments can be supplied, it may just persuade Northern to take a more lenient approach, although it is possible that it may have no effect whatsoever. If the evidence of past payments is not consistent, I reckon it is best not supplied at all, as it may cause more questions to be asked than otherwise.

 

[LateThanNever]

Have we had a thread where Northern have dropped all action against an individual after hearing their side of the story even though (strictly speaking) they could have taken it further?

In the end they will not be able to use a strict liability charge unless the court is satisfied that it was a lie that she was given permission to travel (unlikely, I think, if she's paid so often before) so would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she intended not to pay. I cannot see even a Magistrates Court accepting that - on the simple basis that she asked where to buy a ticket. Personally I'd be replying to Northern in the tones of disgusted of Tunbridge Wells rather than being too meek. But that is undoubtedly easier from a distance rather than when you are directly implicated...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They could still take her for a Byelaw case, if she cannot establish that an authorised person allowed her to travel without a ticket, whether there is a stack of 100000 past tickets or not.

In reality, if evidence of consistent past payments can be supplied, it may just persuade Northern to take a more lenient approach, although it is possible that it may have no effect whatsoever. If the evidence of past payments is not consistent, I reckon it is best not supplied at all, as it may cause more questions to be asked than otherwise.

Would have thought that the onus is on Northern to establish that an authorised person did NOT allow her to travel. as she claims After all you are innocent until proved guilty!

 

[bb21]

In the end they will not be able to use a strict liability charge unless the court is satisfied that it was a lie that she was given permission to travel (unlikely, I think, if she's paid so often before) so would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she intended not to pay. I cannot see even a Magistrates Court accepting that - on the simple basis that she asked where to buy a ticket. Personally I'd be replying to Northern in the tones of disgusted of Tunbridge Wells rather than being too meek. But that is undoubtedly easier from a distance rather than when you are directly implicated...

Intent comes nowhere near a Byelaw prosecution.

Would have thought that the onus is on Northern to establish that an authorised person did NOT allow her to travel. as she claims After all you are innocent until proved guilty!

I doubt it, otherwise all ticketless passengers could claim that they were allowed travel by an authorised person.

 

[LateThanNever]

Intent comes nowhere near a Byelaw prosecution.

Agree but a Byelaw prosecution is not possible as she was given permission to travel!

I doubt it, otherwise all ticketless passengers could claim that they were allowed travel by an authorised person.

If they were better informed they might!

 

[Llanigraham]

Agree but a Byelaw prosecution is not possible as she was given permission to travel!

No, we only have her word for that.

 

[LateThanNever]

No, we only have her word for that.

So there's a presumption of guilt not innocence?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If she has any records of her previous purchases such as old tickets/card receipts this will provide evidence of her honesty in paying in the past and should help her argument.

This is bad advice.
No number of other incidents in which a person behaved lawfully gives any useful evidence to demonstrate compliance with the law during the one incident in question - where the evidence is, by the suspect's own admission, not present. It worries me that such irrational advice appears on here.

Depending on how disgusted/courageous she feels she could also mention that she has incurred considerable inconvenience as a result of complying with the permission granted by a Northern employee at the departure station, which she would like to know how they propose to mitigate ...

What possible assistance is this counter argument in the face of a challenge of ticketless travel?
Are we trying to give the OP useful and reliable advice? Or are we trying to put them in an even more protracted and confrontational dispute?

 

[LateThanNever]

This is bad advice.
No number of other incidents in which a person behaved lawfully gives any useful evidence to demonstrate compliance with the law during the one incident in question - where the evidence is, by the suspect's own admission, not present. It worries me that such irrational advice appears on here.

What possible assistance is this counter argument in the face of a challenge of ticketless travel?
Are we trying to give the OP useful and reliable advice? Or are we trying to put them in an even more protracted and confrontational dispute?

We are trying to suggest to their prosecutions department that they shouldn't pursue a prosecution. In that context evidence of previous everyday compliance should suggest that there is no reason to think compliance had ceased - particularly when there is only very limited circumstantial evidence to suggest it might, perhaps, possibly have!

You're in court. I'm not.

 

[455driver]

All the prosecution department are interested in is did she have a valid ticket yes or no!

 

[LateThanNever]

All the prosecution department are interested in is did she have a valid ticket yes or no!

Are they capitalists yes or no?

 

[Merseysider]

Are they capitalists yes or no?

I feel this is taking the discussion off-topic and is drawing attention away from the matter at hand.

Whether Northern's prosecutions department are capitalist pigs or even soviet commies is immaterial and does not help the OP.

 

[LateThanNever]

I feel this is taking the discussion off-topic and is drawing attention away from the matter at hand.

Whether Northern's prosecutions department are capitalist pigs or even soviet commies is immaterial and does not help the OP.

Was trying to suggest that 'if' they are capitalists then they would be unwilling to engage in a prosecution which would be unsuccessful and so affect their bottom line! So it is a little more complex than not being in possession of a ticket but albeit asking for one.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Would have thought that the onus is on Northern to establish that an authorised person did NOT allow her to travel. as she claims After all you are innocent until proved guilty!

This is also bad advice. The Railway operator can have their evidence put to proof, but there is no requirement for them to provide counter evidence to a proposition which is immaterial to the question before us: was the passenger acting lawfully?

 

[Merseysider]

Was trying to suggest that 'if' they are capitalists then they would be unwilling to engage in a prosecution which would be unsuccessful and so affect their bottom line! So it is a little more complex than not being in possession of a ticket but albeit asking for one.

Northern don't think like that.

This is also bad advice. The Railway operator can have their evidence put to proof, but there is no requirement for them to provide counter evidence to a proposition which is immaterial to the question before us: was the passenger acting lawfully?

I would say the passenger should always be able to provide proof of any authority given to travel, whether that's initials and a timestamp on a scrap of paper or an endorsement on the back of a ticket. Relying on verbal authority alone is not a wise thing to do, and even if the passenger was acting lawfully it is somewhat difficult for them to prove it.

 

[SussexMan]

All the prosecution department are interested in is did she have a valid ticket yes or no!

Do the prosecution department not also have to consider Byelaws 18 (3), i, ii & iii?

(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.