Offered to pay cash still prosecuted - another ATW South Wales case

[Gareth Marston]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-billed-more-600-not-12714189

Mat said: “I finished work early and caught the train. I only had cash on me and the machine at Taffs Well station only took cards.”

Mat said he got on the train to Radyr and said nobody was on the train from whom he could buy a ticket, so he changed at Radyr to a service headed for Fairwater and said the same thing happened.

“There was no guard on the second train.
'If you want to pay cash, you should be able to pay cash'

“I got off at Fairwater and as I went to walk home, a gentleman with a clipboard and a camera stopped me and said ‘have you got a ticket?’

“I said no. He started reading me my rights. I was completely shocked.

“I said ‘I’ve got the money to pay – can I pay you now?’ He said it doesn’t work like that.”

Mat, who works at a builders’ merchants in Taff’s Well, was ordered to pay a total of £616.30 for traveling on a railway without paying a fare – a £440 fine, compensation of £2.30, a victim surcharge of £44 and costs of £130.

Obviously this is the offenders version this is what ATW's website says

Prosecution will be the last course of action. There are some areas where prosecution is unavoidable.

Fraud
Giving false personal details
Knowingly claiming a short journey
Repeat offender e.g. Travelling without a ticket on more than one occasion

 

[Llanigraham]

The Press story again reads as if the miscreant has ignored correspondence, since we are again seeing the £440 Fine levied, which is the standard if the accused does nor complete the Declaration of Earnings Forms, and it also sounds like he did not attend Court to answer the Charge. He also possibly did not complete any enquiry letters issued by ATW.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Another who, for whatever reason, did not bother to turn up to court.

 

[talltim]

If it was as he said, then he shouldn't have had to go to court, as he had no opportunity to buy a ticket (Fairwater has a card only TVM too according to NRE)

 

[soil]

You can see plenty of examples online where people have engaged with the legal process. The outcomes are much, much better than those where, as with this chap, they haven't bothered.

You should see the consequences from failing to respond to an accusation of doing 35mph in a 30mph zone!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does Radyr have a ticket office or cash ticket machine offering remote issue?

Did his connection allow him time to purchase there?

 

[soil]

Does Radyr have a ticket office or cash ticket machine offering remote issue?

Did his connection allow him time to purchase there?

None of the stations have cash-accepting ticket machines.

That fact however is irrelevant as he failed to raise it in court!

Radyr has a ticket office open 6:30 till 1pm Monday to Friday, and till 3pm Saturday (Sunday closed)

Possibly he could have attempted to buy a ticket from the clipboard man?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That fact however is irrelevant as he failed to raise it in court!

It's rather disgraceful that it even got there. Though if it had would it have been a high enough Court to set legal precedent? We could do with some of that on that specific subject of "what if I want to pay cash at a card TVM".

 

[najaB]

It's rather disgraceful that it even got there.

if, as it appears, the gentleman in question didn't engage with ATW then it would have sailed through court without much scrutiny of the evidence.

Though if it had would it have been a high enough Court to set legal precedent? We could do with some of that on that specific subject of "what if I want to pay cash at a card TVM".

Magistrates Court decisions don't set precedent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

if, as it appears, the gentleman in question didn't engage with ATW then it would have sailed through court without much scrutiny of the evidence.

That reflects rather poorly on ATW or their RPI, who should review things like this before even throwing allegations.

He should have simply been sold the ticket he requested. Though I suppose it's possible he was sent a letter asking him to pay the fare and he didn't.

 

[Puffing Devil]

That reflects rather poorly on ATW or their RPI, who should review things like this before even throwing allegations.

He should have simply been sold the ticket he requested. Though I suppose it's possible he was sent a letter asking him to pay the fare and he didn't.

The issue here is that he asked to buy a ticket when challenged by the RPI.

Very poor of the RPI not taking a full history and establishing if Mat had a proper opportunity to purchase during his journey.

Equally poor of Mat to not engage with ATW or the courts. He could have walked away from this matter with proper advice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue here is that he asked to buy a ticket when challenged by the RPI.

Very poor of the RPI not taking a full history and establishing if Mat had a proper opportunity to purchase during his journey.

Precisely. The RPI should have asked questions to establish what had happened before making any allegation of impropriety.

OTOH, it's possible that the attitude test was failed, possibly at every stage.

 

[455driver]

I wonder if he had been observed over a period of time?

I note how he finished work early and so was on his way home, I wonder how did he get to work in the morning?

 

[Llanigraham]

It's rather disgraceful that it even got there. Though if it had would it have been a high enough Court to set legal precedent? We could do with some of that on that specific subject of "what if I want to pay cash at a card TVM".

Magistrate Court prosecutions do NOT set legal precedent. That is only done at High or Appeal Courts.

I suggest it got to the Magistrates because the miscreant did not respond to any correspondence.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm told a LM service terminated at Shrewsbury recently and the passengers were faced with an RPI block (sub contractors of ATW) before going down the subway past the barriers which were manned by ATW at the time. A passenger insisted he had no opportunity to buy as the LM conductor had not come round (not uncommon) as he wanted to pay cash and stood his ground. RPI's were all for taking his full details and it started to get heated -a BTP Sergeant intervened and took the side of the passenger who then paid cash at the barriers.

 

[Haywain]

Precisely. The RPI should have asked questions to establish what had happened before making any allegation of impropriety.

OTOH, it's possible that the attitude test was failed, possibly at every stage.

At one moment you seem remarkably well informed on the facts of the matter, by suggesting that the RPI didn't do his job properly and then you question whether the attitude test was failed. The reality is that you have no idea of the full circumstances of the matter, any more than the rest of us. Therefore please stop jumping to conclusions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm told a LM service terminated at Shrewsbury recently and the passengers were faced with an RPI block (sub contractors of ATW) before going down the subway past the barriers which were manned by ATW at the time. A passenger insisted he had no opportunity to buy as the LM conductor had not come round (not uncommon) as he wanted to pay cash and stood his ground. RPI's were all for taking his full details and it started to get heated -a BTP Sergeant intervened and took the side of the passenger who then paid cash at the barriers.

ATW are particularly out of order there, as LM's stated policy is that, as they have no (or very few if there are any) cash TVMs, a TVM is only an opportunity to pay if you wish to pay by card (ask them if you'd like them to confirm it). ATW have absolutely no business whatsoever in interfering with that policy.

But then LM's revenue protection policy is passenger-friendly and does not assume guilt, just as it should be. I have travelled on LM without a ticket and have purchased one at the barrier without even any vague suggestion that it was improper to do so, the reason being I wished to pay by RTV and no ticket office was open at Bletchley at the time I boarded.

I'm afraid I maintain that, assuming no omission from the newspaper article, this should have gone no further than the sale of a ticket on the spot.

 

[Kite159]

ATW are particularly out of order there, as LM's stated policy is that, as they have no (or very few if there are any) cash TVMs, a TVM is only an opportunity to pay if you wish to pay by card (ask them if you'd like them to confirm it). ATW have absolutely no business whatsoever in interfering with that policy.

But then LM's revenue protection policy is passenger-friendly and does not assume guilt, just as it should be. I have travelled on LM without a ticket and have purchased one at the barrier without even any vague suggestion that it was improper to do so, the reason being I wished to pay by RTV and no ticket office was open at Bletchley at the time I boarded.

I'm afraid I maintain that, assuming no omission from the newspaper article, this should have gone no further than the sale of a ticket on the spot.

I agree with you Neil.

Makes me wonder if ATW RPIs have undisclosed targets they must meet.

 

[Puffing Devil]

ATW are particularly out of order there, as LM's stated policy is that, as they have no (or very few if there are any) cash TVMs, a TVM is only an opportunity to pay if you wish to pay by card (ask them if you'd like them to confirm it). ATW have absolutely no business whatsoever in interfering with that policy.

But then LM's revenue protection policy is passenger-friendly and does not assume guilt, just as it should be. I have travelled on LM without a ticket and have purchased one at the barrier without even any vague suggestion that it was improper to do so, the reason being I wished to pay by RTV and no ticket office was open at Bletchley at the time I boarded.

I'm afraid I maintain that, assuming no omission from the newspaper article, this should have gone no further than the sale of a ticket on the spot.

I agree with you Neil.

Makes me wonder if ATW RPIs have undisclosed targets they must meet.

Let's not conflate Gareth Marston's report from LM with the newspaper article at the head of this thread.

I am in full agreement that the second case should have gone no further than the opportunity to purchase. It does show how these cases can escalate unnecessarily.

 

[Antman]

It would be interesting to know what evidence was presented to the court from the train company.

Given there are no opportunities to pay cash and the person offered to pay cash, then the RPI must have been able to establish the person had a card to pay with.

That element of the story is missing, and without it we don't know if the person was correctly prosecuted* or if it should have been the RPI in the dock for perverting the course of justice.

*Even if you have a card do you have to use it, for example if it took you overdrawn?

 

[najaB]

It would be interesting to know what evidence was presented to the court from the train company.

"I questioned Mr X at Fairwater station after he alighted from a train. He said that he did not have a ticket and asked to purchase one. I informed him that he has to purchase his ticket before travel, not after."

With no defence present there was nobody to make the point that the defendant didn't have an earlier opportunity to purchase.

 

[Clip]

"I questioned Mr X at Fairwater station after he alighted from a train. He said that he did not have a ticket and asked to purchase one. I informed him that he has to purchase his ticket before travel, not after."

With no defence present there was nobody to make the point that the defendant didn't have an earlier opportunity to purchase.

And we don't know whether mat was just issued with a ufn to pay at a later date but ignored it.

However certain posters have yet again jumped the gun without any facts and deemed atw to be in the wrong.

Such is this forum

 

[Puffing Devil]

"I questioned Mr X at Fairwater station after he alighted from a train. He said that he did not have a ticket and asked to purchase one. I informed him that he has to purchase his ticket before travel, not after."

With no defence present there was nobody to make the point that the defendant didn't have an earlier opportunity to purchase.

^^^ This exactly.

Which is why it's so important to show up in court. There are very few magistrates that understand the intricacies of railway ticketing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

*Even if you have a card do you have to use it, for example if it took you overdrawn?

FWIW, LM say no. You merely have to wish to pay cash.

 

[Antman]

With no defence present there was nobody to make the point that the defendant didn't have an earlier opportunity to purchase.

I agree. However if the questioning was this -

"I questioned Mr X at Fairwater station after he alighted from a train. He said that he did not have a ticket and asked to purchase one. I informed him that he has to purchase his ticket before travel, not after."

The RPI has misled the court as that is not the correct position and the RPI would have (or should have) known it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The RPI has misled the court as that is not the correct position and the RPI would have (or should have) known it.

If that was all the statement was, ATW's Prosecutions Department should have known better than to even bring this to Court.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I agree. However if the questioning was this -

The RPI has misled the court as that is not the correct position and the RPI would have (or should have) known it.

Great example of judging a case without evidence !

NajaB seems to have made that comment as a suggestion of 'what if this was said?'

Dragonblyth has treated it as 'fact' and now seems to believe that 'The RPI has misled the Court'

It seems this conclusion is reached without having been present, without having sight of the evidence nor Court transcript and based entirely on the assumption that the journalistic record is a perfectly accurate record of what happened in that courtroom.

Before reaching the same conclusion it might help if a few questions were answered accurately

Had the traveller been warned or reported previously?
How many passenger trains run on ATW without a conductor guard on board?
Was the record checked to show whether the guards went through the two trains involved?
Could the traveller have paid his fare before being reported?
Did the traveller really make any effort to pay before leaving the railway?
Did the traveller respond to letters sent to them?
Did the traveller respond to the Summons to a Court hearing?

Someone else raised the question of how did the traveller react when spoken to by the RPI ? Referred to as 'the attitude test'

If we are certain that we know all the factual answers to all of those questions then it seems we can be confident that our opinion is correct, but if not, the opinion that matters will have been that confirmed by the court.

 

[Starmill]

^^^ This exactly.

Which is why it's so important to show up in court. There are very few magistrates that understand the intricacies of railway ticketing.

Why? If this happened to me (and I really had done nothing wrong - my local station has a card only ticket machine) I would not want to go to court. I don't ever want to go to any kind of court. It would be a deeply stressful an upsetting experience.

The train company cannot do things like that without following their own policy - which is purchase at your first oppourtunity.

 

[soil]

Would the court even consider the case in the absence of any kind of defence? Surely they just stamp it 'guilty' and move on to the next one?

 

[yorkie]

Given there are no opportunities to pay cash and the person offered to pay cash, then the RPI must have been able to establish the person had a card to pay with.

Cash is a valid payment method and the RPI should not be attempting to establish how much cash is in someone's bank account as it is utterly irrelevant.

That element of the story is missing, and without it we don't know if the person was correctly prosecuted* or if it should have been the RPI in the dock for perverting the course of justice.

If only it was a level playing field. But it never will be. So you can discount any prospect of the latter.

*Even if you have a card do you have to use it, for example if it took you overdrawn?

Absolutely not. This myth has been debunked many times.