Penalty fare appeal

[John Palmer]

Whether you pay the settlement sum offered or not depends on how strongly you feel about the matter and your appetite for risk.

Accepting Chiltern's offer and paying the company £136.30 will prevent a prosecution and will be an end to the matter. Chiltern will treat your acceptance of its offer as corresponding to an admission that you acted wrongly. It is likely to reject any complaint you make on that basis. It seems likely that the Rail Ombudsman would take the same view.

If you reject Chiltern's settlememnt offer then, assuming Leamington station remains a compulsory ticket area, you should not be at risk of prosecution for a breach of Byelaw 18 of the Railway Byelaws, because such a charge is precluded by the terms of the Byelaw itself where the station of embarkation was a compulsory ticket area. There has been at least one case reported on this forum where Chiltern seems to have incorrectly prosecuted under Byelaw 18 notwithstanding that the embarkation station appears to have been such an area. Whilst a Byelaw 18 charge should be dismissed on the basis that you boarded the train in a compulsory ticket area and this effectively bars such a prosecution, Chiltern might seek to amend the charge to one under Byelaw 17 – or the company may rely on a Byelaw 17 charge from the outset.

In the case of a Byelaw 17 charge the essential issue here is whether the railway official manning the barrier at Leamington Spa gave you implicit permission to board a train by opening that barrier for you. Whilst such permission would constitute a defence to such a charge (and unfortunately the Notice of Intended Prosecution fails to indicate whether that is what Chiltern has in mind), the onus would lie upon you to satisfy the court that it is more likely than not that you received such implicit permission.

As @Hadders points out in post #24, 'the man on the platform said...' defence can be problematic to prove. Yours is a case where it is not simply a case of what a railway official is alleged to have said, but one in which, on your account, a physical barrier had to be opened by that official. Evidence that the Leamington barriers normally deny access to non-ticket holders would tend to suggest that you could not have gained access to the platform unless a railway official had opened it for you. Possibly this would make it easier for you convince a court that it is more likely than not that you were admitted to the platform at Leamington and thus given permission to board a train there, but convincing a court that such was the case is not going to be risk-free. Would you, for example, be able to deploy extrinsic evidence of the Leamington barriers normally being closed?

 

[Jane21]

isn't this showing that they are offering you an out of court settlement for c£136 after you replied to their original letter, and the alternative is that if you do not opt for this they will opt to prosecute you in the magistrates court (if they win it will cost more than that and you will have criminal record)

They are making the point that the sum they are asking for is in line with a Penalty Fare (but this is not Penalty fare so no right of appeal or prompt payment discount - it's important to appreciate that this is NOT a Penalty Fare ) so they view it as a reasonable offer I suppose.

So unless you can show at court that you did not commit a ticketing offence you would be found guilty and to do that will require you to show or 'prove' the person, who let you through the gate gave permission so the court are satisfied that that is the case (or persuade the magistrates that they did)- and if you could find out who the staff member was and get them to the court to give evidence they would probably just say 'I can't remember this situation...

So to avoid all of this it's probably best that you pay the sum they are asking for (and keep proof of payment / receipt) even though that will seem unfair to you given what happened on the day at the station.

- basically as set out in post #11 by @Fawkes Cat

I appreciate how frustrating this all is of course.

I'll stand corrected by others if people think that paying it is not good advice.

I do agree with you. I will pay the fine. I can not risk going to court and losing, I know 100% that the uniformed member of staff opened the barrier and let me through to buy my ticket on the train, the fact that I explained all this in my letter and I was still issued with a fine gives me no confidence that I will be given a fair hearing. I am disappointed in the system but not sure I can do much to change that!! I have found this forum really helpful. Thank you for all replies.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2024 ==

Whether you pay the settlement sum offered or not depends on how strongly you feel about the matter and your appetite for risk.

Accepting Chiltern's offer and paying the company £136.30 will prevent a prosecution and will be an end to the matter. Chiltern will treat your acceptance of its offer as corresponding to an admission that you acted wrongly. It is likely to reject any complaint you make on that basis. It seems likely that the Rail Ombudsman would take the same view.

If you reject Chiltern's settlememnt offer then, assuming Leamington station remains a compulsory ticket area, you should not be at risk of prosecution for a breach of Byelaw 18 of the Railway Byelaws, because such a charge is precluded by the terms of the Byelaw itself where the station of embarkation was a compulsory ticket area. There has been at least one case reported on this forum where Chiltern seems to have incorrectly prosecuted under Byelaw 18 notwithstanding that the embarkation station appears to have been such an area. Whilst a Byelaw 18 charge should be dismissed on the basis that you boarded the train in a compulsory ticket area and this effectively bars such a prosecution, Chiltern might seek to amend the charge to one under Byelaw 17 – or the company may rely on a Byelaw 17 charge from the outset.

In the case of a Byelaw 17 charge the essential issue here is whether the railway official manning the barrier at Leamington Spa gave you implicit permission to board a train by opening that barrier for you. Whilst such permission would constitute a defence to such a charge (and unfortunately the Notice of Intended Prosecution fails to indicate whether that is what Chiltern has in mind), the onus would lie upon you to satisfy the court that it is more likely than not that you received such implicit permission.

As @Hadders points out in post #24, 'the man on the platform said...' defence can be problematic to prove. Yours is a case where it is not simply a case of what a railway official is alleged to have said, but one in which, on your account, a physical barrier had to be opened by that official. Evidence that the Leamington barriers normally deny access to non-ticket holders would tend to suggest that you could not have gained access to the platform unless a railway official had opened it for you. Possibly this would make it easier for you convince a court that it is more likely than not that you were admitted to the platform at Leamington and thus given permission to board a train there, but convincing a court that such was the case is not going to be risk-free. Would you, for example, be able to deploy extrinsic evidence of the Leamington barriers normally being closed?

Hi, thanks for replying. As I have just replied to message 32. I give up. It’s unfair and I really do not want to be on their database as attempting to dodge a fare but I want to go to court even less!! I will go to the ombudsman but do not expect to get anywhere. I will, of course, post again if the ombudsman goes in my favour!!

 

[WesternLancer]

I do agree with you. I will pay the fine. I can not risk going to court and losing, I know 100% that the uniformed member of staff opened the barrier and let me through to buy my ticket on the train, the fact that I explained all this in my letter and I was still issued with a fine gives me no confidence that I will be given a fair hearing. I am disappointed in the system but not sure I can do much to change that!! I have found this forum really helpful. Thank you for all replies.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2024 ==


Hi, thanks for replying. As I have just replied to message 32. I give up. It’s unfair and I really do not want to be on their database as attempting to dodge a fare but I want to go to court even less!! I will go to the ombudsman but do not expect to get anywhere. I will, of course, post again if the ombudsman goes in my favour!!

Well, of course it may be that a Magistrate gives you a fairer hearing than the railway company have done so far - but as you say it's a risky chance to take and I don't think I'd take it if I was you really - given the outcome if it does not work (court fine / criminal record etc). You very much have my sympathy.

Ref the Ombudsman - if you want to take it to them then I'm sure people here would be happy to check your submission before you send it if you want to post it up for comment and checking (I should say the Ombudsman does not get a good reputation on this forum for taking the passengers side, but it can't harm to try I would have thought).

I would pay the sum demanded by Chiltern before going to the Ombudsman so you are not worrying about Chiltern escalating matters to court in the meant time.

Finally - one thing you can be sure to do is that if you are ever on a late / delayed train, make sure you make a Delay-Repay claim for delay compensation payment so long as you are legitimately allowed to make one.

 

[Titfield]

You can of course pay the settlement requested and then make a complaint to the TOC separately about the events which led to you travelling without a valid ticket. If they ask why you are raising this post settlement I do not think that it is unreasonable to mention the jeopardy that attaches by not accepting a settlement offer given the difficulty of proving a TVM was faulty (particularly for one specific element of a transaction) OR that an unknown member of staff appeared to give you verbal authorisation to travel.

I do not know how comprehensive TVM transaction logs are, but a system I have a modest amount of knowledge of records every interaction in detail and can be "decyphered" by an expert to show what actions the user took and what the outcomes (next step) were. Perhaps Chiltern could look at the log for this specific TVM.

Not that it helps in this specific occasion - and it does come across as being smart after the event - if the machine wouldnt accept my railcard I would have tried it without the railcard to see if that is where the fault lay. Those of us who frequent this forum a lot can see all to often the financial penalties and stress which can be inflicted by a seemingly innocuous matter (faulty tvm) and a seemingly helpful member of staff.

 

[Jane21]

Well, of course it may be that a Magistrate gives you a fairer hearing than the railway company have done so far - but as you say it's a risky chance to take and I don't think I'd take it if I was you really - given the outcome if it does not work (court fine / criminal record etc). You very much have my sympathy.

Ref the Ombudsman - if you want to take it to them then I'm sure people here would be happy to check your submission before you send it if you want to post it up for comment and checking (I should say the Ombudsman does not get a good reputation on this forum for taking the passengers side, but it can't harm to try I would have thought).

I would pay the sum demanded by Chiltern before going to the Ombudsman so you are not worrying about Chiltern escalating matters to court in the meant time.

Finally - one thing you can be sure to do is that if you are ever on a late / delayed train, make sure you make a Delay-Repay claim for delay compensation payment so long as you are legitimately allowed to make one.

Thank you, I really did consider going to court, but as you say, it’s such a big risk!
I will contact the ombudsman and, thank you, I will post my submission on here first for comment and checking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2024 ==

You can of course pay the settlement requested and then make a complaint to the TOC separately about the events which led to you travelling without a valid ticket. If they ask why you are raising this post settlement I do not think that it is unreasonable to mention the jeopardy that attaches by not accepting a settlement offer given the difficulty of proving a TVM was faulty (particularly for one specific element of a transaction) OR that an unknown member of staff appeared to give you verbal authorisation to travel.

I do not know how comprehensive TVM transaction logs are, but a system I have a modest amount of knowledge of records every interaction in detail and can be "decyphered" by an expert to show what actions the user took and what the outcomes (next step) were. Perhaps Chiltern could look at the log for this specific TVM.

Not that it helps in this specific occasion - and it does come across as being smart after the event - if the machine wouldnt accept my railcard I would have tried it without the railcard to see if that is where the fault lay. Those of us who frequent this forum a lot can see all to often the financial penalties and stress which can be inflicted by a seemingly innocuous matter (faulty tvm) and a seemingly helpful member of staff.

You can of course pay the settlement requested and then make a complaint to the TOC separately about the events which led to you travelling without a valid ticket. If they ask why you are raising this post settlement I do not think that it is unreasonable to mention the jeopardy that attaches by not accepting a settlement offer given the difficulty of proving a TVM was faulty (particularly for one specific element of a transaction) OR that an unknown member of staff appeared to give you verbal authorisation to travel.

I do not know how comprehensive TVM transaction logs are, but a system I have a modest amount of knowledge of records every interaction in detail and can be "decyphered" by an expert to show what actions the user took and what the outcomes (next step) were. Perhaps Chiltern could look at the log for this specific TVM.

Not that it helps in this specific occasion - and it does come across as being smart after the event - if the machine wouldnt accept my railcard I would have tried it without the railcard to see if that is where the fault lay. Those of us who frequent this forum a lot can see all to often the financial penalties and stress which can be inflicted by a seemingly innocuous matter (faulty tvm) and a seemingly helpful member of staff.

Hi, I am going to pay the fine, and then go to the ombudsman. I did write to Chiltern customer service (TOC train operating company?) who replied that it was nothing to do with them. I now realise that I do not have a case regarding the ticket machine being unresponsive as there are others I could have used but didn’t have time. It is the fact that a uniformed member of staff opened the barrier and told me that I could buy a ticket on the train that actually caused my predicament! This is what I will concentrate on. I have read some other posts and I am shocked at some of the situations people find themselves in.

 

[Hadders]

It might also be worth raising the issue with your MP, particularly given the 'issues' that currently exist with certain train operating companies wrongful prosecution of 75,000 people that is currently in the process of being unpicked.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

The letter from Chiltern (post #29) refers to a journey between Leamington Spa and Marylebone.
Why would this be?
Also, you were let through the barrier on the basis that you would purchase a ticket on the train. How soon after the train commenced it’s journey did the ticket inspector approach you?

 

[Jane21]

It might also be worth raising the issue with your MP, particularly given the 'issues' that currently exist with certain train operating companies wrongful prosecution of 75,000 people that is currently in the process of being unpicked.

The letter from Chiltern (post #29) refers to a journey between Leamington Spa and Marylebone.
Why would this be?
Also, you were let through the barrier on the basis that you would purchase a ticket on the train. How soon after the train commenced it’s journey did the ticket inspector approach you?

My journey was from Leamington Spa to Boxhill and West Humble. The first change of train was Marylebone. I made it clear to the inspector that I was going to Boxhill and West Humble I dont know why that was ignored. The inspector approached me almost immediately. I was pleased to see him as I thought it was just a case of buying a ticket as advised by the ‘gate keeper’ It could not be argued that I should have tried to find the ticket inspector as it really was within moments of me finding a seat

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2024 ==

My journey was from Leamington Spa to Boxhill and West Humble. The first change of train was Marylebone. I made it clear to the inspector that I was going to Boxhill and West Humble I dont know why that was ignored. The inspector approached me almost immediately. I was pleased to see him as I thought it was just a case of buying a ticket as advised by the ‘gate keeper’ It could not be argued that I should have tried to find the ticket inspector as it really was within moments of me finding a seat

I will be raising the matter with my MP.

 

[furlong]

In the case of a Byelaw 17 charge the essential issue here is whether the railway official manning the barrier at Leamington Spa gave you implicit permission to board a train by opening that barrier for you. Whilst such permission would constitute a defence to such a charge (and unfortunately the Notice of Intended Prosecution fails to indicate whether that is what Chiltern has in mind), the onus would lie upon you to satisfy the court that it is more likely than not that you received such implicit permission.

Recall that there should be no fine for breaching byelaw 17.

24. Enforcement
(1) Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and,with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2024 ==

With the proviso that the account of what happened might be unreliable, I'd suggest sending a further response asking them to drop the matter, focussing primarily on the fact permission was given to travel (something about which they should be able to make their own enquiries), and noting the facts that would appear to make clear there should be no prosecution.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I think it’s fair to ask where you would have bought a ticket, had the inspection not taken place?

 

[Jane21]

Recall that there should be no fine for breaching byelaw 17.

With the proviso that the account of what happened might be unreliable, I'd suggest sending a further response asking them to drop the matter, focussing primarily on the fact permission was given to travel (something about which they should be able to make their own enquiries), and noting the facts that would appear to make clear there should be no

I think it’s fair to ask where you would have bought a ticket, had the inspection not taken place?

Hi, Firstly I would have looked for an inspector to buy a ticket from. Then I am not sure if I’m honest. I would have either bought a return ticket on my phone or waited until I got to Marylebone where they have an excess fare window before you go through the barriers. Bearing in mind that at this point I didn’t think there was any sort of a problem at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

I think it’s fair to ask where you would have bought a ticket, had the inspection not taken place?

First of all I would have looked for a ticket inspector. Then either bought a return ticket on my phone or waited until I got to Marylebone and used the excess fare window which is the train side of the barriers. Bearing in mind that at this point I didn’t think there was any problem with what I was doing

 

[fandroid]

First of all I would have looked for a ticket inspector. Then either bought a return ticket on my phone or waited until I got to Marylebone and used the excess fare window which is the train side of the barriers. Bearing in mind that at this point I didn’t think there was any problem with what I was doing

In the unlikely event of this happening again, I would strongly advise against relying on the excess fare window at Marylebone. We see dozens of people on here caught at Marylebone by Revenue Protection staff lurking near that window. The latter have heard every story in the book intended to cover ticket fraud so naturally have a deeply sceptical view of anyone turning up without a ticket. If you buy a ticket online when on the train, make absolutely sure it's not an Advance ticket, as these just cannot be bought for the train you are on for the whole intended journey. Many are tempted to pick out an Advance ticket for the next train, and that simply is not a valid ticket, and will result in a penalty when inspected.

 

[Jane21]

In the unlikely event of this happening again, I would strongly advise against relying on the excess fare window at Marylebone. We see dozens of people on here caught at Marylebone by Revenue Protection staff lurking near that window. The latter have heard every story in the book intended to cover ticket fraud so naturally have a deeply sceptical view of anyone turning up without a ticket. If you buy a ticket online when on the train, make absolutely sure it's not an Advance ticket, as these just cannot be bought for the train you are on for the whole intended journey. Many are tempted to pick out an Advance ticket for the next train, and that simply is not a valid ticket, and will result in a penalty when inspected.

Thank you, I do realise this now!! A lot of the problem is that each member of staff you speak to has a different view on what is acceptable. When I got cautioned someone near me also did for having the wrong advanced ticket, on my way home there was an announcement clearly stating that if you had the wrong advance ticket then it wasn’t valid and you would be expected to buy a new ticket at the full price, not a fine, just a new ticket. I have been told that another train company pays 50p to the conductor for each ticket sale. How are we supposed to know what we can do unless we read all the bye laws of each company!! And remember them!!! It’s not until you have been cautioned that you realise you MUST have a valid ticket. I am still hoping to get my caution overturned!

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you, I do realise this now!! A lot of the problem is that each member of staff you speak to has a different view on what is acceptable. When I got cautioned someone near me also did for having the wrong advanced ticket, on my way home there was an announcement clearly stating that if you had the wrong advance ticket then it wasn’t valid and you would be expected to buy a new ticket at the full price, not a fine, just a new ticket. I have been told that another train company pays 50p to the conductor for each ticket sale. How are we supposed to know what we can do unless we read all the bye laws of each company!! And remember them!!! It’s not until you have been cautioned that you realise you MUST have a valid ticket. I am still hoping to get my caution overturned!

The Byelaws are the same for all train companies. But you are correct there are inconsistent approaches to ticket issues from different staff in different roles and it can be unhelpful.

The general rule is ‘buy before you board’.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

In the unlikely event of this happening again, I would strongly advise against relying on the excess fare window at Marylebone. We see dozens of people on here caught at Marylebone by Revenue Protection staff lurking near that window. The latter have heard every story in the book intended to cover ticket fraud so naturally have a deeply sceptical view of anyone turning up without a ticket. If you buy a ticket online when on the train, make absolutely sure it's not an Advance ticket, as these just cannot be bought for the train you are on for the whole intended journey. Many are tempted to pick out an Advance ticket for the next train, and that simply is not a valid ticket, and will result in a penalty when inspected.

But if someone turned up claiming to have travelled from as far out as Leamington Spa, even they would would surely think the person was being honest.
A chancer would claim to have travelled from the closest station at which the train stopped before reaching Marylebone?

 

[AlterEgo]

But if someone turned up claiming to have travelled from as far out as Leamington Spa, even they would would surely think the person was being honest.
A chancer would claim to have travelled from the closest station at which the train stopped before reaching Marylebone?

People can and do “pay when challenged”. That they don’t lie about their origin doesn’t mean they weren’t chancing it in the first place.

 

[Jane21]

People can and do “pay when challenged”. That they don’t lie about their origin doesn’t mean they weren’t chancing it in the first place.

I agree and I do understand that they have heard every excuse. However, the state I was in (very very upset) and the fact that (in my opinion) a phone call to Leamington could have solved the issue, with hind sight I’m not sure why the fraud inspector didn’t make that call there and then. I did ask him why he didn’t and he replied that he would wait until he got to Marylebone, I was in too much shock to properly question the point of this.

 

[John R]

In the unlikely event of this happening again, I would strongly advise against relying on the excess fare window at Marylebone. We see dozens of people on here caught at Marylebone by Revenue Protection staff lurking near that window. The latter have heard every story in the book intended to cover ticket fraud so naturally have a deeply sceptical view of anyone turning up without a ticket. If you buy a ticket online when on the train, make absolutely sure it's not an Advance ticket, as these just cannot be bought for the train you are on for the whole intended journey. Many are tempted to pick out an Advance ticket for the next train, and that simply is not a valid ticket, and will result in a penalty when inspected.

I would strongly discourage you from doing this, as you expose yourself to the risk of a similar issue occurring, unless there is absolutely clear evidence that you could not have bought a ticket at the station.

Whilst there is no obligation to buy a ticket online before boarding where no ticketing facilities exist, where such facilities exist but are not working I would suggest that if you are going to buy online you do it before boarding. That way, there can be no ambiguity that you have had a ticket for the entire journey.

 

[Jane21]

Hi all,
An update, I have just received this. Feeling hopeful!!

 

[Jane21]

Hi, I could do with some more help please. My case has been closed by the Ombudsman.
They contacted Leamington station asking for CCTV and details of the phone call from the enforcement officer who said he would phone to check out my story. Apparently CCTV gets wiped after 30 days and there is no record of any phone call. As there is no evidence the ombudsman can not do anything. Is there anywhere else I can go with this.
Thanks all for your help.

 

[Hadders]

Sadly, I am not surprised about the Ombudsman. This is what I said upthread:

We have had poor reports about the Rail Ombudsman. I'm not saying you shouldn't take your case to them but we have seen examples where they just regurgitate what they've been told by the train company.

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any right to appeal against their decision but you could complain about how they have handled your case (i.e. just regurgitating what Chiltern have told them). I doubt it will get you anywhere, but at least it means someone wlaw has to look at your case again and puts them to a degree of inconvenience.

It might also be worth raising the issue with your MP, particularly given the 'issues' that currently exist with certain train operating companies wrongful prosecution of 75,000 people that is currently in the process of being unpicked.

Did you raise this with your MP? What did they say?

You could also consider a complaint via Passenger Focus.

 

[Jane21]

Sadly, I am not surprised about the Ombudsman. This is what I said upthread:



Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any right to appeal against their decision but you could complain about how they have handled your case (i.e. just regurgitating what Chiltern have told them). I doubt it will get you anywhere, but at least it means someone wlaw has to look at your case again and puts them to a degree of inconvenience.


Did you raise this with your MP? What did they say?

You could also consider a complaint via Passenger Focus.

Thanks,
With the proof no longer available I don’t think it’s worth going back to the Ombudsman, not sure how rail companies can be allowed to delete CCTV after 30 days when they can take months before they contact you after a caution.
I haven’t raised it with my MP as I was hopeful that the case would be resolved.
I intend to now and will keep you updated.
Thanks again for replying

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2024 ==

Thanks,
With the proof no longer available I don’t think it’s worth going back to the Ombudsman, not sure how rail companies can be allowed to delete CCTV after 30 days when they can take months before they contact you after a caution.
I haven’t raised it with my MP as I was hopeful that the case would be resolved.
I intend to now and will keep you updated.
Thanks again for replying

Thanks,
With the proof no longer available I don’t think it’s worth going back to the Ombudsman, not sure how rail companies can be allowed to delete CCTV after 30 days when they can take months before they contact you after a caution.
I haven’t raised it with my MP as I was hopeful that the case would be resolved.
I intend to now and will keep you updated.
Thanks again for replying

i will also contact Passenger Focus

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks,
With the proof no longer available I don’t think it’s worth going back to the Ombudsman, not sure how rail companies can be allowed to delete CCTV after 30 days when they can take months before they contact you after a caution.
I haven’t raised it with my MP as I was hopeful that the case would be resolved.
I intend to now and will keep you updated.
Thanks again for replying

With your MP you need to ask for what you want them to do about it. The idea of an ombudsman is for an impartial third party to assess the scenario and then the theory is both parties abide by their ruling. That then is the end of the line.

So it may be that your point is the rail ombudsman is an inadequate body that doesn’t do what it says it should have the ability to do. That might be the point you want to raise with your MP (which may have no impact on you getting your money back).

That may also be an issue to raise with Passenger Focus. Worth you checking their remit as a passenger watchdog, set up by parliament iirc.

 

[Jane21]

With your MP you need to ask for what you want them to do about it. The idea of an ombudsman is for an impartial third party to assess the scenario and then the theory is both parties abide by their ruling. That then is the end of the line.

So it may be that your point is the rail ombudsman is an inadequate body that doesn’t do what it says it should have the ability to do. That might be the point you want to raise with your MP (which may have no impact on you getting your money back).

That may also be an issue to raise with Passenger Focus. Worth you checking their remit as a passenger watchdog, set up by parliament iirc.

Hi,
Although I would love my money back it’s not my main reason for continuing. We must be able to rely on staff giving correct information otherwise one could therefore argue that if a member of staff tells you to leave the train in an emergency onto the track then you could get prosecuted for being on the track. It just feels wrong.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi,
Although I would love my money back it’s not my main reason for continuing. We must be able to rely on staff giving correct information otherwise one could therefore argue that if a member of staff tells you to leave the train in an emergency onto the track then you could get prosecuted for being on the track. It just feels wrong.

Yes. The point is indeed worth pursuing irrespective of the money.

 

[Cuthbert]

Thanks,
not sure how rail companies can be allowed to delete CCTV after 30 days when they can take months before they contact you after a caution.

It is the norm with all industries. Most are 28 days some 31 days.
Why this number of days I am not sure maybe due to storage.

The footage gets over ridden with new footage on the storage.
The *rules* state that "The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) states that CCTV footage should only be kept for as long as it's necessary for the purpose it was collected for. There's no specific minimum or maximum retention period, but the length of time depends on several factors, including, Purpose, Industry standards, Legal requirements, Incident type. "

All Industries work with the ICO who monitor the length of time you retain the footage. There has been some heft fines levied by the ICO for companies keeping footage too long. You can check these out on the ICO site.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi, I could do with some more help please. My case has been closed by the Ombudsman.
They contacted Leamington station asking for CCTV and details of the phone call from the enforcement officer who said he would phone to check out my story. Apparently CCTV gets wiped after 30 days and there is no record of any phone call. As there is no evidence the ombudsman can not do anything. Is there anywhere else I can go with this.
Thanks all for your help.

You could go to the small claims court, but I don’t advise this as you don’t have any evidence. Regrettably you are best off chalking this one down to experience. Im sorry this wasn’t a better outcome for you, but it is also difficult to see what the Ombudsman could have done in light of the fact they were working with no evidence.