Unless there's more case law already, that could be an area to try to develop - but remember both that a passenger may claim to have an honest belief that this is their ticket for the journey they are making, and the focus of that byelaw is "hand[ing] over" for "verification" which could certainly fail and lead to alternative offences. RORA meanwhile involves proving "intent to avoid payment".
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Notice of prosecution & complaint
- Thread starter diana72
- Start date
- Status
Unless there's more case law already, that could be an area to try to develop - but remember both that a passenger may claim to have an honest belief that this is their ticket for the journey they are making, and the focus of that byelaw is "hand[ing] over" for "verification" which could certainly fail and lead to alternative offences. RORA meanwhile involves proving "intent to avoid payment".
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Oh dear!
The decision in Burns is of very little assistance - the Company were not present and the issue was different: Burns was charged with not handing over his ticket for inspection when he hadn't been requested to hand over a ticket for inspection.
The decision referred to the wording of TfL Byelaw 18, where it was held that he did, in fact, "hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person" by presenting an Oyster card with insufficient funds, as it was the failure to "hand over" a ticket that was alleged.
This is not relevant to your situation diana72.
jkdd71 also referred to that 'judgement' just a few weeks ago - equally inappropriately. Has it appeared in some publication or blog recently?
The decision in Burns is of very little assistance - the Company were not present and the issue was different: Burns was charged with not handing over his ticket for inspection when he hadn't been requested to hand over a ticket for inspection.
The decision referred to the wording of TfL Byelaw 18, where it was held that he did, in fact, "hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person" by presenting an Oyster card with insufficient funds, as it was the failure to "hand over" a ticket that was alleged.
This is not relevant to your situation diana72.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,468
Please beware of the time-lagged response from the OP in Post 18.
Nope. Nothing in your rambling post would be a valid defence against a Byelaw prosecution. You might be able to cobble together the foundation of a defence against a Regulation of Railways Act prosecution if you were skilled enough, but it would be fairly hard work.
Why should I know it? I don't go to London often, I've used Oyster a total of one time, and it didn't work properly then.
Hi Furlong,
how are you suggesting me to follow up? shall I get a solicitor? wroth to go to court for 2 pounds fare liability?! would say no, but worth doing it, if I can establish a precedent and improve the things for other passengers....
Hi najab,
thanks for your advise, i am not a solicitor, I am only an honest passenger trying to understand what next actions can be taken to improve a system that seems to me completely rotten... In regard the rambling, was just a way to get some opinion and information on the regulation.... I am clever enough to understand that if I don't have a valid ticket, have to pay the fare + penalty, here the discussion point is what is the liability of the train operator in getting sure that they are selling the right tickets and if their "stupid" procedure are in line with the law, and I don't think that this is the case, just a matter to go to the court to establish the case....
how are you suggesting me to follow up? shall I get a solicitor? wroth to go to court for 2 pounds fare liability?! would say no, but worth doing it, if I can establish a precedent and improve the things for other passengers....
Hi najab,
thanks for your advise, i am not a solicitor, I am only an honest passenger trying to understand what next actions can be taken to improve a system that seems to me completely rotten... In regard the rambling, was just a way to get some opinion and information on the regulation.... I am clever enough to understand that if I don't have a valid ticket, have to pay the fare + penalty, here the discussion point is what is the liability of the train operator in getting sure that they are selling the right tickets and if their "stupid" procedure are in line with the law, and I don't think that this is the case, just a matter to go to the court to establish the case....
It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what we think. It certainly doesn't matter what sounds as common sense to you (or us).
You had a ticket from Luton to West Hampstead. You had a ticket from Kings Cross to Cambridge. You didn't have a ticket between W Hampstead and St Pancras! That is all that is relevant to the case in hand.
On this Forum we regularly read comments like "the man on the platform/ the man in the booking office told me it would be alright". Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they said something which was misinterpreted / misheard/ misunderstood.
Perhaps it is just the writing style but from reading Diana72's posts it doesn't came across to me, and please accept my apologies if I am incorrect, that English is her first language.
If that is the case it could explain any further misunderstanding that she may have had when she bought the other ticket.
If that is the case it could explain any further misunderstanding that she may have had when she bought the other ticket.
If you're asking me, then probably now just wait for a letter from the company.
While you could send a pre-emptive fare and apology, people normally consider it better to wait for the company to make the first contact so you have a better idea of what they intend to do.
Meanwhile you should write down for yourself everything you can remember about the incident while it is fresh in your memory and if you still have tickets/receipts, don't lose them! You might need them so the company that issued them can identify the person who sold you them. (I'd advise against trying to find that person yourself and speaking to them - it's probably better if all contact is in writing or professionally supervised.)
Probably, but also it probably provides evidence that the passenger is committing an S5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offence, which will be charged instead.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
If you do allow this to be heard in a Court, it will only be in a Magistrates Court, and their decision will not set any precedent for any other passenger. In the event that which ever party looses in the Magistrates Court then chooses to request an Appeal against the Decision in the Court of Appeal, then the decision of that Court of Appeal will be capable of binding on other Courts in future, if that decision clarifies any point of law. It would only be that clarification of the law that would be of assistance to other future trials - not the circumstnces of your incident.
Having quickly scanned your first couple of posts on here, there doesn't seem to be any point of law that could be usefully clarified by the Court of Appeal. The Byelaw Offence of being unable to produce the appropriate ticket when alighting from the train appears to be a simple matter of fact.
The costs in the Court of Appeal with professional representation will be in the thousands.
I'm not sure what assessment anyone could make that would lead them to advise that "it is worth going to court" over this incident. The only defence available to you seems to be one of sympathy for having been caught up in an unfortunate misunderstanding over a relatively minor activity, and that, sadly, is no defence.
Last edited:
I was preparing my apology letter when I realised that the ticket King's cross -Cambridge is stating, London All terminals - Cambridge....
I guess that London All Terminals, refer to all the terminals where there is a train going striaght to Cambridge? or does it mean that I can get a train to any London station to go to King's cross and go to Cambridge? Apologies for the silly question, but why do they write London All terminals when you can go to Cambridge only from King's cross?
I guess that London All Terminals, refer to all the terminals where there is a train going striaght to Cambridge? or does it mean that I can get a train to any London station to go to King's cross and go to Cambridge? Apologies for the silly question, but why do they write London All terminals when you can go to Cambridge only from King's cross?
A ticket from Cambridge to London Terminals is also valid to Liverpool Street (changing at Stansted Airport), to Old Street and Moorgate (changing at Finsbury Park), and possibly to still other London Terminals; I have not checked. And the reverse is true too.
But not West Hampstead?
Is West Hampstead a London terminal? I don't think it is.
I'm afraid I'm still not seeing any simplicity here: 18(1) considers validity only on entering a train (not on alighting) and 18(2) deals with handing over not validity (or appropriateness).
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
This has been tested more than once. It is pretty much a slam dunk as far as the courts are concerned.
18(1) stands because the OP did not enter the train with a valid ticket for his journey.
The complication being that 18(1) only requires a valid ticket entitling them to travel at the time they entered the train - which the OP did have, though only for the Luton-West Hampstead and Kings Cross-Cambridge portions of their intended journey.
I'm still not convinced that presenting a Luton-West Hampstead ticket at St Pancras counts as presenting their ticket on request [as per 18 (2)] as they didn't have a ticket for that portion of their journey. I'd appreciate a steer in the direction of any case that could clear that up for me.
And to Liverpool Street direct, but there are no other London Terminals that could qualify.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed not, nor on a possible route to one for this purpose.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
If you are wishing assistance in the interpretation of statutes or Byelaws with theor development through subsequent case law, then please start a thread of your own, so that you can receive the best possible help that the forum's members can offer you.
I make this suggestion because the difficulty you mention here, and it's resolution, isn't assiting diana72.
- Status