Northern Rail lose 50p court case

[ANorthernGuard]

it Doesn't help going thru lovely areas like Hattersley, Gorton and Flowery Field all hard up areas with a high amount of unemployment and a high level of petty crime, (its always the minority that spoil it for the majority)

 

[WestCoast]

it Doesn't help going thru lovely areas like Hattersley, Gorton and Flowery Field all hard up areas with a high amount of unemployment and a high level of petty crime, (its always the minority that spoil it for the majority)

Yes, these things do tally. The fares are low (relatively), yet there is effectively very little deterrent. As a guard, what do you with these vouchers? Insist upon on them or are you not told about them?

Hattersley station is not a pretty sight, it's on a par with good old Wakefield Kirkgate.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Yes, these things do tally. The fares are low (relatively), yet there is effectively very little deterrent. As a guard, what do you with these vouchers? Insist upon on them or are you not told about them?

Hattersley station is not a pretty sight, it's on a par with good old Wakefield Kirkgate.

were not told about them (we usually figure out something is up tho) as it would defeat the object of the voucher system, personally I can't really see how Northern can win, they try and clamp down using a very fair means (IMO) they have limited funds and o there best but its never good enough (and never will be)

 

[WestCoast]

were not told about them (we usually figure out something is up tho) as it would defeat the object of the voucher system, personally I can't really see how Northern can win, they try and clamp down using a very fair means (IMO) they have limited funds and o there best but its never good enough (and never will be)

It may seem fair but if it's not covered by the NRCoC, in my opinion, it's not really enforceable in a legal sense. As others have said, what if you lose the voucher? CCTV evidence is needed.

It would only be enforceable if was a Permit To Travel scheme in a PF area, and that's not going to happen soon.

It's a good thing Northern are trying to do something, but it's a difficult route and the voucher system is not infallible by any means.

 

[strange6]

I'm with ANorthernGuard on this. If you pay your honest way then there is no problem. I don't blame Northern one little bit in clamping down like this. They're protecting my back (in terms of a honest fare paying passenger) as well as their own.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . personally I can't really see how Northern can win, they try and clamp down using a very fair means (IMO) they have limited funds and o there best but its never good enough (and never will be)

That's a fair and balanced assessment.
Running on a network with many small unstaffed stations is going to be a Revenue challenge for any operator. I don't like Northern's use of untrained contractors on their gatelines and don't like the 'voucher' system, but at least they're trying to do something, and something certainly needs to be done.

What would be the cost of adequate machines and trained staff at every station adequate for peak periods? Yes, too much, surely.
At least these unsatisfactory measures keep sending out the message that Fare Evasion is taken seriously. Even for 50p.
I certainly don't have any better suggestions!

 

[clagmonster]

Why not have a decent number of staff on the block and have them sell tickets. That way, anyone asking for a ticket from said station at Piccadilly can be directed to the waiting constable (or fed into the prosecutions system by another means).
The challenge is to then catch the short buying season pass holders, which is harder.

 

[wintonian]

I'm with ANorthernGuard on this. If you pay your honest way then there is no problem. I don't blame Northern one little bit in clamping down like this. They're protecting my back (in terms of a honest fare paying passenger) as well as their own.

That's a fair and balanced assessment.
Running on a network with many small unstaffed stations is going to be a Revenue challenge for any operator. I don't like Northern's use of untrained contractors on their gatelines and don't like the 'voucher' system, but at least they're trying to do something, and something certainly needs to be done.

What would be the cost of adequate machines and trained staff at every station adequate for peak periods? Yes, too much, surely.
At least these unsatisfactory measures keep sending out the message that Fare Evasion is taken seriously. Even for 50p.
I certainly don't have any better suggestions!

I don't disagree with what they are rtying to do, just that there must be a better way of doing it?

 

[RPI]

What causes Northern to fail in a lot of cases is not having PACE trained RPI's, when the TOC I work for does these operations anyone "caught" will be interviewed under caution at the time and therefore anything that is said at the time can be used in evidence in court, and 99% of the time the offender will admit what they've done at the time but wont later on after they've thought up excuses etc.

But lets face it, they didnt win this one but they have won the other thousands that theyve put through court!

 

[Ihatehadfield]

Another problem not yet mentioned on the Hadfield route is that at Newton For Hyde on the down platform,the guard has to press a plunger,which is situated at the far end (level with the 323 back cab) of the platform.So if you are trying to get the 'usual suspects' in the front coach you have got give up and get to the back to press the plunger. :cry:

 

[yorkie]

If you pay your honest way then there is no problem..

Are you sure?

Let's say I had boarded at Guide Bridge that day, and was returning to Flowery Field.

I arrive at the barriers at Manchester.

"Can I have a ticket from Flowery Field to Manchester please?"
"OK, where is your voucher?"
"I don't have a voucher"
"But you boarded at Flowery Field?"
"No, Guide Bridge"
"So, you are changing your story?"

I can see someone being prosecuted for that. I did speculate this in a previous discussion and I said it would be interesting if Northern did this voucher system for any station that was not the nearest to Manchester (or Leeds) and now we know they do. This is highly dodgy.

I would very much like to test this out one day, as what I post above is entirely valid and legitimate and yet someone could be prosecuted for that. Is that right?

 

[clagmonster]

If the passenger explained that they had travelled in from a station nearer than the blocked station on questioning but wanted to return further, I suspect they would be OK (though I suppose the correct ticket to issue in your Guide Bridge/Flower Field example would be a Guide Bridge-Manchester day return with an over distance excess on the return portion).

In the example in the court case, the passenger asked for a ticket from Flowery Field as he was returning there, but he had actually got on further out at Newton for Hyde. It has been said the the RPI won't have been PACE trained, so I would be interested to see what evidence was presented, because on the face of it it does seem a surprising verdict, so I think I am missing something.

 

[yorkie]

If the passenger explained that they had travelled in from a station nearer than the blocked station on questioning but wanted to return further, I suspect they would be OK (though I suppose the correct ticket to issue in your Guide Bridge/Flower Field example would be a Guide Bridge-Manchester day return with an over distance excess on the return portion).

Good luck getting that excess, and many passengers (and some staff!) do not know about excesses. Plus it's valid anyway to start short so it's not incorrect.

Anyway if that is the case then the voucher system is useless as anyone asked for a voucher can simply then say they came from a different station? No, I suspect Northern would rather take people to court, and lose, than let people use such a loophole.

 

[clagmonster]

Not incorrect to start short, just more correct to issue the excess. As I say, I would hope that given such a reasonable explanation about returning a longer distance, the ticket would be issued.

I think the intention is that people who don't have the voucher have to do some explaining very quickly. If only they had PACE trained RPIs to take a witness statement there and then, it would work so much better. Many dodgers will be caught by this, and doing the blocks at random stations keeps them on their toes (otherwise if the voucher system was always done at Ashburys, the short ticketers would just buy from Gorton instead).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You seriously think Northern would prosecute someone for offering to pay more than the fare they should do?

The system works because the passenger that travels from further than they first admit to will always use the station closest that they think they can get away with. Northern then proves they didn't through this system. the only people who have a problem with this are the people who benefit from it not being there.

If a passenger actually travels from a closer unmanned station and states as such the system can't prove fare evasion and lets them pay the higher fare.

What I have noticed in this thread, is that people have ignored the obvious. The article (which is trying to paint the company in bad light) says....

Mr Astley had travelled to Piccadilly from Newton for Hyde station. Unable to buy a fare on the train, he was sold a £4.70 return ticket at Piccadilly to travel back to Flowery Field station - less than a mile away from Newton for Hyde - for later that day.

Mr Astley says he was immediately pulled to one side by rail officials and told he had committed travel fraud because he had not travelled in from Flowery Field. He had travelled from the further Newton for Hyde and should have paid £5.20. Mr Astley says he immediately offered to pay an on-the-spot fine.....

....Mr Astley, from Hyde, said: "I tried a number of times to settle this in a sensible way and held my hands up that I’d made an honest mistake. I assumed the price to that cluster of stations was the same.

So he knew he had travelled from a further station, but he still tried to pay from a closer station and clearly had enough money to pay the correct fare as he offered to pay the "fine" straight away. As a "commuter" he must have known the fare was not the same anyway (unless he never pays the correct fare!).

Society has a crazy way of thinking paying 50p less every day is "fine" as "it's only 50p", but when someone is paying £5 less, it is "outrageous" and "should be clamped down". Fact is they are both the same thing.

How his position can be considered by society as "acceptable behaviour" and Northern's response as "unlawful" or "excessive" is beyond me.

 

[MikeWh]

Are you sure?

Let's say I had boarded at Guide Bridge that day, and was returning to Flowery Field.

I arrive at the barriers at Manchester.

"Can I have a ticket from Flowery Field to Manchester please?"
"OK, where is your voucher?"
"I don't have a voucher"
"But you boarded at Flowery Field?"
"No, Guide Bridge"
"So, you are changing your story?"

I can see someone being prosecuted for that.

So can I.

Not incorrect to start short, just more correct to issue the excess.

I don't agree. From the passengers point of view it's easier just to ask for one ticket which is valid for what you want to do.

... You seriously think Northern would prosecute someone for offering to pay more than the fare they should do? ...

Yes I do. In the mindset of an RPI who is out to get anyone they can, and who is determined to prosecute regardless to set an example, that conversation is going to seem like the passenger is changing their story because they've been caught out. If you're not expecting to be asked for a voucher (or maybe haven't even heard of this scheme before) you may well hesitate slightly which will be interpreted the wrong way. The RPI is immediately going to wonder how far you've really come.

I'm not saying every RPI would do this, just that there are RPIs throughout the country who are so focussed on getting anyone they can that they have decided in advance that no explanation will be valid.

 

[DarloRich]

No. If CCTV evidence was the determining factor, and the CCTV evidence is managed by Northern, then they would have realised that their evidence was flawed and would have dropped the prosecution.
Nobody takes a prosecution to Court with evidence which doesn't support their claim.
I'll stick with my initial assessment that it was the 'voucher' system which was challenged and found to have no basis in the contract to travel.

Dave - I think you are correct. There is an intresting point raised with regard to the lost or destroyed voucher!

Ths cant be enforceable.

 

[northwichcat]

If the passenger explained that they had travelled in from a station nearer than the blocked station on questioning but wanted to return further, I suspect they would be OK (though I suppose the correct ticket to issue in your Guide Bridge/Flower Field example would be a Guide Bridge-Manchester day return with an over distance excess on the return portion).

You are talking about G4S staff that have on occasions tried to take Manchester CTLZ tickets off people at Piccadilly when they are valid on Metrolink, told people they're wrong when they've quoted something out of NRCoC and not known the difference between an excess and selling a new ticket.

 

[flymo]

How do these voucher systems work? Are you obliged to take one, can you refuse, what happens if you do refuse? It is just I've never really heard much about these before and never experienced them in action. Is there any documentation on them online or anywhere?

Just curious really.

 

[DarloRich]

I assume Northern have "won" on these cases becuase they havent been tested. I think this result could mean they have to change thier systems.

No one is suggesting that fare evading is right BUT you have to have a legal system in place to catch people. After all, simply shooting criminals in the head "works" but isnt legal!

 

[northwichcat]

I assume Northern have "won" on these cases becuase they havent been tested. I think this result could mean they have to change thier systems.

No one is suggesting that fare evading is right BUT you have to have a legal system in place to catch people. After all, simply shooting criminals in the head "works" but isnt legal!

Maybe Northern have won cases simply because passengers haven't got legal representation and haven't looked through the wording of NRCoC. I'm sure the high profile Mr Freeman wouldn't have any clients losing court cases to Northern Rail based on the voucher scheme even if they had travelled from Crewe to Manchester and had asked for an Ardwick-Manchester ticket.

 

[DarloRich]

Maybe Northern have won cases simply because passengers haven't got legal representation and haven't looked through the wording of NRCoC. I'm sure the high profile Mr Freeman wouldn't have any clients losing court cases to Northern Rail based on the voucher scheme even if they had travelled from Crewe to Manchester and had asked for an Ardwick-Manchester ticket.

Correct - I wonder if he might have a new niche here!

 

[Greenback]

Suppose, just suppose, that the customer had previously bought a ticket from the further station and the price at that time was indeed the same as their usual station. A fares revision then caused the price to change so that it became slightly higher. Unless the customer checks the fares regularly they may not know that the situation has changed. When they are told of the situation, they do not dispute it, and offer to pay the difference that they owe.

It may be unlikely, but it is certainly not impossible, and I don't think we can automatically assume that the customer must have known every single fare just because they commute!

 

[clagmonster]

I don't agree. From the passengers point of view it's easier just to ask for one ticket which is valid for what you want to do.

I would expect the passenger to ask for just one ticket, however I think that up on learning the details of the journey being made (which in such a conversation about vouchers, (s)he will fairly quickly), the excess would be the more appropriate ticket for the RPI to issue. I don't believe the straightforward return is wrong, just slightly less right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes I do. In the mindset of an RPI who is out to get anyone they can, and who is determined to prosecute regardless to set an example, that conversation is going to seem like the passenger is changing their story because they've been caught out. If you're not expecting to be asked for a voucher (or maybe haven't even heard of this scheme before) you may well hesitate slightly which will be interpreted the wrong way. The RPI is immediately going to wonder how far you've really come.

I'm not saying every RPI would do this, just that there are RPIs throughout the country who are so focussed on getting anyone they can that they have decided in advance that no explanation will be valid.

I think (hope) in such a case, if an RPI submitted a report with such information that the case wouldn't reach court, as the prosecutions department would have time to check details such as CCTV, ordering of stations etc. If it did reach court, I don't see how a passenger asking to pay from further than they actually came could be proven beyond doubt to have deliberately evaded the fare. The worst I can see is them being prosecuted for travelling without a valid ticket (not fare evasion) if the station they actually boarded at was staffed.

 

[umontu]

I've done similar things to this man and I always explain in full to the ticket inspector/g4s/person where I've come from, where I'm returning to and then follow it up with the question like "Is a return from that station cheeper than an extra single?"
Works for me, shows you know what you're doing and that you have a better understanding than any g4s man (Speaking from experience where I was greeted with a seriously confused face at Preston).

 

[MikeWh]

I think (hope) in such a case, if an RPI submitted a report with such information that the case wouldn't reach court, as the prosecutions department would have time to check details such as CCTV, ordering of stations etc. If it did reach court, I don't see how a passenger asking to pay from further than they actually came could be proven beyond doubt to have deliberately evaded the fare. The worst I can see is them being prosecuted for travelling without a valid ticket (not fare evasion) if the station they actually boarded at was staffed.

I agree that is what should happen, but (at the risk of taking this thread off topic) I have been heavily involved with a case involving FCC where a young woman repeatedly asked the RPI to check CCTV to prove her story about touching twice on Oyster at Finsbury Park. Not only did he refuse, but so did the prosecutions department, and they were all set to settle out of court with a 'hefty fine' until we provided evidence from TfL to back up her story. They still won't admit that they were wrong and apologise, but they did drop the case.

 

[Lampshade]

Are you sure?

Let's say I had boarded at Guide Bridge that day, and was returning to Flowery Field.

I arrive at the barriers at Manchester.

"Can I have a ticket from Flowery Field to Manchester please?"
"OK, where is your voucher?"
"I don't have a voucher"
"But you boarded at Flowery Field?"
"No, Guide Bridge"
"So, you are changing your story?"

I can see someone being prosecuted for that. I did speculate this in a previous discussion and I said it would be interesting if Northern did this voucher system for any station that was not the nearest to Manchester (or Leeds) and now we know they do. This is highly dodgy.

I would very much like to test this out one day, as what I post above is entirely valid and legitimate and yet someone could be prosecuted for that. Is that right?

I may do just that

However, that depends entirely on knowing when a station block is taking place

You are talking about G4S staff that have on occasions tried to take Manchester CTLZ tickets off people at Piccadilly when they are valid on Metrolink, told people they're wrong when they've quoted something out of NRCoC and not known the difference between an excess and selling a new ticket.

I can vouch for all three points there.

 

[ian13]

I find this case interesting.

In short, it seems he travelled Newton-Flowery-Piccadilly and intended to return Piccadilly-Flowery. For whatever reason, at the Manchester barrier he bought a return from Flowery-Piccadilly.

By buying a return from Flowery-Piccadilly, he made no attempt to pay for his travel on portion Newton-Flowery. Now, from the court's perspective, it needs to be established if he really did travel Newton-Flowery - in this case he admitted it, but if he hadn't lack of voucher/CCTV etc could be used to prove that he in fact did. Regardless, he admitted that he travelled from Newton, so lack of voucher is irrelevant.

If he hadn't admitted travelling Newton-Flowery, I'm sure the court would have ruled he had no obligation to keep any voucher given, but travel could still be established by witnesses or CCTV.

So, by not buying a ticket valid for travel on portion Newton-Flowery at the first opportunity, he committed an act constituting fraud (a misrepresentation of facts relied on by Northern Rail). To be guilty of fraud though, you need to also actually intend to do it. In this case, I suspect the courts found that this element did not exist - he obviously made a mistake.

However, this is pretty thin ground, as realistically it's an excuse anyone could use. The courts do have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one intended to commit fraud however.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I find this case interesting.

In short, it seems he travelled Newton-Flowery-Piccadilly and intended to return Piccadilly-Flowery. For whatever reason, at the Manchester barrier he bought a return from Flowery-Piccadilly.

By buying a return from Flowery-Piccadilly, he made no attempt to pay for his travel on portion Newton-Flowery. Now, from the court's perspective, it needs to be established if he really did travel Newton-Flowery - in this case he admitted it, but if he hadn't lack of voucher/CCTV etc could be used to prove that he in fact did. Regardless, he admitted that he travelled from Newton, so lack of voucher is irrelevant.

If he hadn't admitted travelling Newton-Flowery, I'm sure the court would have ruled he had no obligation to keep any voucher given, but travel could still be established by witnesses or CCTV.

So, by not buying a ticket valid for travel on portion Newton-Flowery at the first opportunity, he committed an act constituting fraud (a misrepresentation of facts relied on by Northern Rail). To be guilty of fraud though, you need to also actually intend to do it. In this case, I suspect the courts found that this element did not exist - he obviously made a mistake.

However, this is pretty thin ground, as realistically it's an excuse anyone could use. The courts do have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one intended to commit fraud however.

Personally I think the judge took pity on him as he had claimed to offer to pay the difference previously, I don't know wether he did it on purpose or not but it sends the wrong message out, how many peoplle will try using that excuse now? fare dodgers will be rubbing their hands with glee now!

 

[CHESHIRECAT]

They need more G4S on barriers... many stations on the MAC-MAN line have closed ticket offices after 1200; Bramhall/Adlington etc.. you get a queue off every stopper and one person selling tickets especially if Guard hasn't been able to get through train.. why should customers have to wait for one person to issue tickets for up to 20 people on arrival ?