Penalty Fare-enforcement may involve Blackmail

[Helmut Fleugzo]

This is my first post so greetings to all.

I travelled from Brighton to Victoria having paid the full fare in advance of travelling. My mistake was in carrying only 2 parts of the 4 that were issued. I received a penalty but was advised by the ticket collector to appeal and as he could see that I had paid from the tickets I did carry, I should get the penalty notice cancelled.

I went through the appeals process and Passenger Focus also wrote on my behalf. The matter was handed to RPSS who are apparently a subsidiary of Southern Rail to collect money on their behalf. RPSS refused to apply a discretion to cancel the penalty.

I received a demand to pay a penalty fare and I refused payment on the grounds that I had already paid and that penalties are illegal under English Law where the claimant cannot establish any liquidated damages (Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977 and corresponding EC Directive of 1993, various case law). UCTA 1977 cannot be excluded in any consumer transaction and is binding law. The EC Directive goes further and makes it mandatory for member states to ensure that its provisons are implemented in every consumer transaction.

RPSS persisted with their claim and eventually wrote to me saying they would prosecute and that I could be liable for 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of £1000. Such a threat is covered by Section 21 of the Theft Act which is copied and pasted:

21 Blackmail..

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— .
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and .
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. .
(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand. .
(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

It has been established that "menaces" can include a threat to bring criminal proceedings. A claim for what is essentially a breach of contract cannot justify criminal proceedings as a criminal act must be proven beyond doubt based on an intent to deprive the Rail Network of the fare (which in my case had already been paid). As no such evidence exists, it then becomes unreasonable to threaten criminal sanctions and as it is a corporate entity, they cannot claim that a threat of criminal proccedings was considered to be a reasonable method of reinforcing the demand.

I reported RPSS to the Police and I am informed that the matter is being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate the Rail Company for a possible violation of Section 21. RPSS compounded their crime by sending a further letter repeating the threat of criminal proceedings but with an additional claim that they had incurred "prosecution costs" in the sum of £40. As the matter has not yet been referred to a judge there cannot be any prosecution costs as these can only be awarded upon a conviction. To attempt to mislead me into thinking they had a right to such costs violates Section 15 (1) of the Theft Act which makes it a crime to obtain money by deception (the deception being they are entitled to "prosecution costs").

A senior barrister has given an informal opinion as to the the dubious nature of penalty fares in general here: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

To my knowledge, a case has never been run where the Rail Compnay is in the dock for blackmail and attempting to obtain money by deception. If, as seems likely, penalties are illegal in the absense of any liquidated loss, some major changes will be coming soon. Passenger Focus have a record of hundreds of similar cases (http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/research/publications/ticket-to-ride-summary-report-may-2012#) and they are helping me with my case as is my MP who suggests involving the Justice Department, especially if the CPS consider a crime or serial crimes may have been committed.

Just thought the forum ought to know.

 

[maniacmartin]

This is my first post so greetings to all.

I travelled from Brighton to Victoria having paid the full fare in advance of travelling. My mistake was in carrying only 2 parts of the 4 that were issued.

What type of ticket was this? (Single, Return, Advance etc)
Which parts did you carry and which were you not in possession of?

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

It was a return ticket Brighton-Victoria-Brighton.

Paid for in advance via internet and tickets collected from a station.

I took 2 parts which said to have them available for inspection if asked. The 2 parts I did not have with me appeared to be receipts but when I read the fine print they did need to be carried with me on the journey. My mistake.

 

[Ferret]

What type of ticket was this? (Single, Return, Advance etc)
Which parts did you carry and which were you not in possession of?

I'm guessing here, but it sounds like the OP only had seat reservations and not the tickets.

Railway Byelaw 18 in theory would apply if that's the case - failure to show a valid ticket when asked. It's certainly a fascinating post regarding unfair contract terms legislation and it will be interesting to see the outcome!

Nevertheless, there does appear to be a breach of Byelaw 18 here which the OP may well have to take responsibility for in a Magistrate's Court. Whether RPSS are guilty of anything I shall leave it to more legally tuned minds than mine to establish!

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

I had 2 of the 4 tickets and it was plain from the 2 parts I did have with me that they were for the journey I was undertaking.

Yes, it will be an interesting battle to determine how far a Rail Company can go with the Unfair Contract Terms Act/EC 1993 Directive stating that they apply in all consumer related transactions and cannot be excluded by other statutes, regulations or by-laws.

I believe the problem here is mixing simple breaches of contract with criminal sanctions. It is a universal principle that a person cannot be found guilty of a crime unless the prosecution show guilty intent (mens rea for all you lawyers). My case is based on clear evidence of a lack of guilty intent as the tickets were paid for in advance of the journey.

So far, the Police are convinced enough that a crime may have been committed and that there is enough to run the case past a CPS prosecutor. I believe the problem for the Rail Network is that they are pursing a penalty in circumstances where a passenger has clearly been honest and that it would be impossible for them to show an attempt to evade paying a fare.

The Rail Network may attempt to show that the crime is not in the act of paying in advance and forgetting to carry all 4 parts of the ticket but in attempting to evade the penalty. This raise some acute legal difficulties as well as philosophical ones!

The barrister I refer to in the OP (ES article) seems to think that the rail networks are on "dubious" ground.

 

[Stigy]

I believe the problem here is mixing simple breaches of contract with criminal sanctions. It is a universal principle that a person cannot be found guilty of a crime unless the prosecution show guilty intent (mens rea for all you lawyers). My case is based on clear evidence of a lack of guilty intent as the tickets were paid for in advance of the journey.

Are you familiar with the term Strict Liability? TOCS can prosecute using either the Regiulation of Railways Act 1889 or the Railway Byelaws (2005). The Byelaws are all Strict Liability offences which means all the TOC needs to prove beyond all reasonable doubt is that you couldn't produce a valid ticket (Byelaw 18.2) and that the facilities were in place at your origin station at which to buy one. No intention to avoid payment need be evident. TOCs can and do cancel PFNs and proceed to the Mags court, so you need to be a little bit careful here, especially when quoting sections of the law or acts of parliament to their Prosecutions Team...

I'm not entirely sure why you'd have 4 tickets though, can you clarify please?

 

[maniacmartin]

I don't want to detract from the interesting debate about how Unfair Contract Terms Act relates to the situation, but you don't need mens rea for a Railway Bylaw prosecution because unlike a more serious Regulation of Railways Act, it's a strict liability offence to not present valid tickets. Other crimes such as exceeding the speed limit when driving or manslaughter have, I presume, also had successful prosecution even when intent hasn't been established.

The problem with you only showing the tickets and not the mandatory reservations or vica versa, is that you could have given the other two coupons to a friend who would also have "only 2 of the 4 parts", so it you don't have conclusive evidence of a lack of guilty intent in my opinion.

I too believe that the laws are rather biased against the passenger, given that a TOC can bring a criminal case for what in most industries would be a civil case, but I think you are treading on very thin ice by not paying the Penalty Fare. It could prove expensive for you if courts find in their favour.

 

[Ferret]

I believe the problem here is mixing simple breaches of contract with criminal sanctions. It is a universal principle that a person cannot be found guilty of a crime unless the prosecution show guilty intent (mens rea for all you lawyers). My case is based on clear evidence of a lack of guilty intent as the tickets were paid for in advance of the journey.

In which case, you will lose. A railway Byelaw is what's called a 'strict liability offence' - meaning that no intent needs to be proved, just that the offence was committed - similar to speeding and other motoring offences. The offence here is Railway Byelaw 18 - failure to show a valid ticket when asked, and by your own admission, you didn't have a valid ticket. You appear to be under several misapprehensions here, and I wonder if you have consulted a legal practitioner with specialist knowledge of railway law? If not, can I respectfully suggest you do so as a matter of urgency?

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Are you familiar with the term Strict Liability? TOCS can prosecute using either the Regiulation of Railways Act 1889 or the Railway Byelaws (2005). The Byelaws are all Strict Liability offences which means all the TOC needs to prove beyond all reasonable doubt is that you couldn't produce a valid ticket (Byelaw 18.2) and that the facilities were in place at your origin station at which to buy one. No intention to avoid payment need be evident. TOCs can and do cancel PFNs and proceed to the Mags court, so you need to be a little bit careful here, especially when quoting sections of the law or acts of parliament to their Prosecutions Team...

I'm not entirely sure why you'd have 4 tickets though, can you clarify please?

"The ticket machine issued 4 parts and it seemed to me (mistakenly) that 2 were receipts only which led me to just carry 2 on my journey. It was clear from the 2 parts I did carry and showed to the inspector that I had paid for the journey and was on the correct train.The inspector did not issue an on the spot fine because of this.

I agree that strict liability can apply in civil matters subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and EC Directive which I am suggesting overrides subordinate legislation, espcially by-laws and regulations. But it has not, to my knowledge, ever been tested. Hence the barrister's view in the ES article (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
The chances are that if you have a reasonable excuse not to pay a penalty fare, you do not have to pay it - whatever a train company's staff may claim. If you are prepared to quote your rights and call their bluff, you will usually prevail.

Provided always that you do pay the normal single fare, the chances are that any threats made against you, particularly of criminal prosecution, are hollow.

Richard Colbey, a barrister at Lamb Chambers, told the Standard: "The policy is legally dubious. Penalty fares are not enforceable unless a court orders it - and a court would be unlikely to do so with someone prepared to make a fuss. There has been no reported case of a train company suing in this way - the last thing the rail industry would want is a pronouncement by a judge on its levying of penalty fares."

Another leading rail industry lawyer told the Standard that he had himself been threatened with prosecution for not paying a penalty fare. "I wrote them a very polite letter explaining why I had not got a ticket," he said. "I told them to have a go if they felt like it and heard nothing more."

I, too, have several times successfully refused to pay penalty fares demanded of me in circumstances which were unreasonable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The court will have to consider whether a by-law is subordinate to UCTA 1977 and the EC Directive on limiting terms in a contract that are deemed "unfair" and it is already established that a "penalty" is illegal unless the claimant can show it is to compensate for a provable loss.

So far, this matter is now with the Crown Prosecution Service who are looking at the blackmail aspect and, possibly, an attempt to obtain by deception (the Rail Company are claiming "prosecution costs" and these do not exist until a determination has been made by a judge who alone has the power to award costs).

I am not aware of any other cases having been run but as a judge once said: Mere novelty is never a bar to a cause of action.

 

[Stigy]

"The ticket machine issued 4 parts and it seemed to me (mistakenly) that 2 were receipts only which led me to just carry 2 on my journey. It was clear from the 2 parts I did carry and showed to the inspector that I had paid for the journey and was on the correct train.The inspector did not issue an on the spot fine because of this.

I agree that strict liability can apply in civil matters subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and EC Directive which I am suggesting overrides subordinate legislation, espcially by-laws and regulations. But it has not, to my knowledge, ever been tested. Hence the barrister's view in the ES article (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
The chances are that if you have a reasonable excuse not to pay a penalty fare, you do not have to pay it - whatever a train company's staff may claim. If you are prepared to quote your rights and call their bluff, you will usually prevail.

Provided always that you do pay the normal single fare, the chances are that any threats made against you, particularly of criminal prosecution, are hollow.

Richard Colbey, a barrister at Lamb Chambers, told the Standard: "The policy is legally dubious. Penalty fares are not enforceable unless a court orders it - and a court would be unlikely to do so with someone prepared to make a fuss. There has been no reported case of a train company suing in this way - the last thing the rail industry would want is a pronouncement by a judge on its levying of penalty fares."

Another leading rail industry lawyer told the Standard that he had himself been threatened with prosecution for not paying a penalty fare. "I wrote them a very polite letter explaining why I had not got a ticket," he said. "I told them to have a go if they felt like it and heard nothing more."

I, too, have several times successfully refused to pay penalty fares demanded of me in circumstances which were unreasonable.

Playing devil's advocate here, how did the staff member who issued the Penalty Fare (not fine), know that you didn't give the actual tickets to a friend to use, and you thought you'd try your luck?

Not sure about the legislation you refer to, but this would be prosecuted as a criminal matter, not a civil one. The article you refer to where the Standard interviewed the Barrister indicates the problems with enforcing the unpaid penalty amount which, in itself is a civil matter, and I agree that problems may arise if prosecuting at a County Court, because the PF amount doesn't demonstrate the TOC's loss (whereas the fare does, whether you can prove it is irrelevant). The TOC would cancel this and the matter would become criminal, as the PFN no longer stands. The Penalty Fare is meant as a civil remedy for a criminal offence, meant for one-time misdeamenors such as your.

By all means try your luck, but from what you've told us, you're guilty of an offence under Byelaw 18. The Penalty Fare will be a lot cheaper than losing at court...

 

[Mojo]

Hence the barrister's view in the ES article (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html).

That article, to quote one of the contributors to it, is "legally dubious."

It refers only to Penalty Fares, which are only of many options that Inspectors/Prosecution Departments can use against customers.

Whilst it is correct in that the law only allows for recovery of a Penalty Fare as a civil debt, if a Penalty Fare remains unpaid and with no pending appeals after 21 days, the Penalty Fare can be cancelled by the company that issued it, and criminal proceedings can be instigated for the original offence of travelling on a train with no ticket, whether that be under the Byelaws (no intent required), Regulation of Railways Act (intent required), or some other legislation.

 

[Ferret]

I agree that strict liability can apply in civil matters subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and EC Directive which I am suggesting overrides subordinate legislation, espcially by-laws and regulations. But it has not, to my knowledge, ever been tested. Hence the barrister's view in the ES article (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

In my opinion, if penalty fares were ever abolished, all that would happen is everybody who was previously PF'd would be reported for Byelaw 18. Not exactly a 'win' for your cause I would argue!

I cannot imagine that the unfair contract terms act will over-ride the Railway Byelaws for one moment to be honest - I re-iterate that in my opinion you should contact a lawyer experienced in matters relating to railway ticketing law, and not rely on an article written by a journalist.

 

[transportphoto]

I can't see anything stopping Southern launching a Byelaw prosecution against the OP for a breach of Byelaw 18, failure to show a valid ticket when demanded, can anyone else? Certainly an interesting case though.

TP

 

[tony6499]

Seen on other forums people quoting that article to not pay penalty fares but they seem to be misled by it.

Failure to produce a valid ticket when requested is an offence and if you had bought it and lost it is not an excuse.

 

[Greenback]

While I am no great fan of organisations pointing out what might happen if osmeone is convicted of an offence in court, as the effect is often to scare someone into settling matters at an early stage. I can't really agree that it counts as blackmail.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, if no warning was given of the potential outcome of any court case, then I believe it would lead to a much higher workload for the courts, and a lot of complaints that defendants were unawar eof how serious their situation was.

I think that the best can be hoped for is a tightening of the wording allowed in such letters, perhaps to emphasise that this would be only one posisble outcome. But I will be very interested in developments!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I cannot imagine that the unfair contract terms act will over-ride the Railway Byelaws for one moment to be honest - I re-iterate that in my opinion you should contact a lawyer experienced in matters relating to railway ticketing law, and not rely on an article written by a journalist.

I tend to agree!

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

The entire case derives from a penalty fare issued as a result of a mistake in not carrying all of the 4 parts of the ticket. I had a valid ticket as far as the contractual obligation was concerned because I had paid in advance and was travelling on the correct train. Not having the 2 counterparts is the issue and as no loss has been sustained by the Rail Company they are not entitled to a penalty. The Rail Company are satisfied that I did pay so that is no longer an issue.

I do not see how an unenforceable penalty can become a criminal offense unless the Rail Company can establish that I intended to travel without paying.This cannot be established.

Here is what the Crown Prosecution Service say:

Fare Evasion

You will often have a choice between specific legislation relating to the form of transport, and proceedings under the Theft Act 1978, or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. See the Fraud Act 2006 and Forgery and Counterfeiting elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Stones 7-7043) is usually used for offences of fare evasion on the railways for:
travelling/attempting to travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
having paid the fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeding by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance and with intent to avoid payment thereof or
having failed to pay the fare, giving in reply to a request from an officer of a railway company a false name and address.

Section 103(a) Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (Stones 7-7001) covers a person refusing to quit a carriage on arrival at the point to which he has paid his fare.

Both section 5 and section 103(a) are summary only offences. "Intent to avoid payment" in section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due.

There are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion, but in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate to use the section 5 offence.

 

[snail]

To my knowledge, a case has never been run where the Rail Compnay is in the dock for blackmail and attempting to obtain money by deception.

All I can say to the OP is 'Good luck'!

IANAL but I wouldn't be as convinced that pointing out the possible consequences of a strict liability office is blackmail. Like others have intimated, all the TOC barrister has to do in court is ask whether another person used the 'missing' coupons.

It's interesting that you are prepared to investigate every avenue that could get you out of this situation but didn't do the simple thing of reading fully the 4 or 5 coupons produced to understand why you had them (I'm assuming 2x tickets, 2x reservation coupons and 1x collection receipt but other combinations could apply). Particularly the parts that say 'only valid with' or similar.

 

[Ferret]

I do not see how an unenforceable penalty can become a criminal offense unless the Rail Company can establish that I intended to travel without paying.This cannot be established.

You seem to be missing the point about Byelaw 18. You also appear not to know that many people are prosecuted under Byelaw 18 on an almost daily basis for failing to show a valid ticket when requested.

I'm fascinated by the elements of the case regarding the prosecution costs, but the issuing of the penalty fare appears to be correct, and the subsequent Court action for non-payment also seems to be correct. This is why I am encouraging you to seek proper legal advice.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Seen on other forums people quoting that article to not pay penalty fares but they seem to be misled by it.

Failure to produce a valid ticket when requested is an offence and if you had bought it and lost it is not an excuse.

However, in my case I did produce part of a valid ticket and produced the missing parts subsequently. I did not lose the other parts but simply misread the terms printed on the tickets as only 2 said they needed to be available for inspection. A clear mistake without dishonest intent.

The mischief of the rail regulations is to penalise people who do not pay or get on the wrong train. I paid and travelled on the correct train.

under Regulation of Railways Act 1889 S.5(3a): Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof​

It seems that mens rea is necessary--"intent."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I cannot seem to find Section 18 on the net--only comments--can you copy this and post please?

 

[Stigy]

The entire case derives from a penalty fare issued as a result of a mistake in not carrying all of the 4 parts of the ticket. I had a valid ticket as far as the contractual obligation was concerned because I had paid in advance and was travelling on the correct train. Not having the 2 counterparts is the issue and as no loss has been sustained by the Rail Company they are not entitled to a penalty. The Rail Company are satisfied that I did pay so that is no longer an issue.

You are missing the point. You HAVE breached a Railway Byelaw which requires NO intent to avoid payment. Byelaw 18(2) relates to not being able to produce a ticket, and you have contravened this. A receipt is not a ticket. Did you read what I said earlier? Basically you could have sold the ticket to a mate, and this Byelaw protects the TOC as trying to prove you sold a ticket would be nye on impossible.

Click below

Byelaws

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter
any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a
valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity
when asked to do so by an authorised person.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

All I can say to the OP is 'Good luck'!

IANAL but I wouldn't be as convinced that pointing out the possible consequences of a strict liability office is blackmail. Like others have intimated, all the TOC barrister has to do in court is ask whether another person used the 'missing' coupons.

It's interesting that you are prepared to investigate every avenue that could get you out of this situation but didn't do the simple thing of reading fully the 4 or 5 coupons produced to understand why you had them (I'm assuming 2x tickets, 2x reservation coupons and 1x collection receipt but other combinations could apply). Particularly the parts that say 'only valid with' or similar.

No one else could have used the other coupons as I had left them at home when I travelled. A matter of evidence to be weighed by the court. If they believe my version of events that a simple mistake had occured without any intent to defraud or evade payment I cannot see how a criminal action can be successful. Certainly not under The Regulations of the Railways Act which requires guilty intent.

However, I am still trying to locate what Section 18 says --still searching.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are missing the point. You HAVE breached a Railway Byelaw which requires NO intent to avoid payment. Byelaw 18(2) relates to not being able to produce a ticket, and you have contravened this. A receipt is not a ticket. Did you read what I said earlier? Basically you could have sold the ticket to a mate, and this Byelaw protects the TOC as trying to prove you sold a ticket would be nye on impossible.

Click below

Byelaws

Link did not work--thanks though--will keep trying

 

[Panda]

21 Blackmail..

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— .
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and .
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. .
(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand. .
(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

IMHO, the TOC has reasonable grounds for making the demand and it will be very hard proving this to be otherwise. You failed to show a valid ticket on demand (you only showed part of a valid ticket - which isn't a valid ticket).

From what you have posted thus far, I'm not sure that you have researched this very well. Much of what you say, whilst true, seem to be generally taken out of context or not taking in terms of the bigger picture.

 

[snail]

No one else could have used the other coupons as I had left them at home when I travelled. A matter of evidence to be weighed by the court. If they believe my version of events that a simple mistake had occured without any intent to defraud or evade payment I cannot see how a criminal action can be successful.

No doubt you will have seen the links to the byelaws above.

In cases like yours, previous accounts on here suggest that the train companies are willing to give credence to simple mistakes and either waive the prosecution or settle on payment of an administration fee. However, nothing I've read previously has tried to bring accusations of blackmail and threats of the police, CPS, MPs et al. into play.

 

[island]

OK, short summary. Your research has been rather deficient I am afraid.

Of course you can commit a crime without intent. Hundreds of people are done for speeding every day, for example. You've been told by a number of people that there is a law besides the Regulation of Railways Act, which requires no intent, and sticking your fingers in your ears when told same doesn't change the fact.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations relate to contracts. You are being asked for a penalty fare or prosecuted under secondary legislation, which is not a contract. Therefore, the said regulations do not apply.

Here's the relevant part of byelaw 18 for you:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

Threatening to prosecute someone for an offence they appear to have committed is not blackmail, and if it were up to me (which thankfully it isn't) you'd be charged with wasting police time as well if you pursued it.

You badly need to wind your neck in and start paying up if you want to avoid a trip to court.

 

[Panda]

Not having the 2 counterparts is the issue and as no loss has been sustained by the Rail Company they are not entitled to a penalty.

It is a penalty fare. Loss sustained by the Rail Company has nothing to do with it at all. It is not a fine - see it more as a special kind of fare. Here's an analogy:

You go to a pay on foot car park (post paid). If you lose your ticket, you normally have to pay quite a bit more than you would have had to if you still had your ticket. That money isn't to make up for any loss sustained by the car park operator, but to make up for any potential loss from the result of lost tickets. Penalty fares are the same, they are not there to make up for actual loss, but there for potential loss (as many people have stated before - think about people getting 4 vouchers and passing 2 of them to their friends - there is potential loss, not actual loss).

 

[Dave1987]

I have to say I find that article very very dubious. It seems to glorify fare challenging RPI's and doesnt seem at any point to say you must buy an appropriate ticket before travelling. The title of the article alone seems to suggest people should try and play the system. I mean it says that if you have been caught without any ticket at all you should pay the price of a single ticket then when the company comes after you for a ROR act intent to avoid the fare, say that by paying for the single fare you have proved that you didnt try to avoid paying for a ticket. Am I the only person who thinks that complete bull***t. From what others have said on this thread I think the OP could be in for a large bill. The article talks about the elderly being dragged off trains because they didnt have their senior railcard, well sorry but without the railcard and ticket bought using it is totally invalid.

Articles like this really annoy me as like I said before they almost glorify fare evading as people will now think they will get away with having the wrong ticket for travel or no ticket at all and that is very very irresponsible.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Seen on other forums people quoting that article to not pay penalty fares but they seem to be misled by it.

Failure to produce a valid ticket when requested is an offence and if you had bought it and lost it is not an excuse.

I have got the link to the By-laws to work and this is what they say:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

QUOTE:
The Byelaws are there to help everyone to travel easily and safely. This can be only achieved if all users take time to consider their actions and observe the Byelaws.

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16
(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.​

The question that arises is whether having proof of having purchased a ticket is sufficient to avoid a penalty being issued by reason of a technical breach of S18. Further, are the by-laws intended to cover situations where a valid ticket was purchased but not all parts were available at the time of the inspection? That is, is the by-law intended to prosecute honest passengers who did not have all of the parts of their ticket or is it to cover situations where people do not produce a ticket because they do not have a ticket to produce?

I could argue that I was entitled to travel because I had paid for the journey in advance. An interesting point arises here as I did try to get through the barrtier with the ticket I had with me but it wqould not let me pass. I did not know why the barrier was blocked and went through the manned barrier showing the inspector the tickets I had with me and saying that the barrier did not work for me. The Inspector glanced at the ticket and waved me through. 18 (3) (iii) may arise??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have to say I find that article very very dubious. It seems to glorify fare challenging RPI's and doesnt seem at any point to say you must buy an appropriate ticket before travelling. The title of the article alone seems to suggest people should try and play the system. I mean it says that if you have been caught without any ticket at all you should pay the price of a single ticket then when the company comes after you for a ROR act intent to avoid the fare, say that by paying for the single fare you have proved that you didnt try to avoid paying for a ticket. Am I the only person who thinks that complete bull***t. From what others have said on this thread I think the OP could be in for a large bill. The article talks about the elderly being dragged off trains because they didnt have their senior railcard, well sorry but without the railcard and ticket bought using it is totally invalid.

Articles like this really annoy me as like I said before they almost glorify fare evading as people will now think they will get away with having the wrong ticket for travel or no ticket at all and that is very very irresponsible.

Do you work for a Rail Company?

My case is simply that the Rail Network ought not pursue people they know have paid the correct fare and due to an honest mistake lost or forgot parts of a ticket which they produced later as proof of payment. The parts of the ticket I did have with me were clear in showing I had paid and was on the correct train.

I agree that people who evade payment should be penalised as should all dishonest acts. The key word here is "dishonest."

 

[island]

The byelaw says you must hand over a valid travel ticket, not that you must have bought one.

Could you prove that the gateline attendant letting you through was giving you permission to travel without a ticket?

 

[oversteer]

The full byelaws are in
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/nationalrailwaybyelaws.pdf

 

[sheff1]

Very interesting to see a post which has approached things from a very different angle (certainly one I have never seen before). I have absolutely no idea on the chances of your success, but look forward to hearing how things develop.