Penalty Fare - Unfairly given? Need advice

[soil]

I only do the journey to Sandhurst once or twice a week, the other days its a much simpler route from Winnersh to Bracknell return, so buying a season ticket wouldn't be cost effective in my situation.

A 5-week season from Winnersh to Bracknell would cost £76.60 in months of a 30 days, and £74.30 in months of 31 days.

This would replace 25 Super Off Peak tickets at £3.80, or CDRs at £4.10, or SDRs at £4.20. 25 * £3.80 = £95

So there is in fact a good saving.

You'd need to still buy Wokingham - Sandhurst tickets as used of course.

It wasn't that I 'Ignored' the ticket machines at Wokingham Station, but more that I've been able to buy the ticket on the train without issue since September, and having never actually read the rules about buying tickets before boarding the train, I felt that this was a perfectly normal way to buy my ticket.

Perhaps the first time, but as a second offence you knew, and were let off lightly.

I was hoping that as I have tickets for every journey for the months of March, April and May to hand, with all relevant receipts, that this would be sufficient proof that there was never any intent to dodge the fare.

It's a strict liability offence to travel without a ticket.

Out of interest, if he had interviewed me on the spot, what could the consequences have been?

Letter in a week's time, threat of prosecution, eventual settlement for ~£100.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree that he ignored an opportunity, but is there any precedence for this among RoR prosecutions, as oppose to leaving the destination station?

I understand that the majority of, but not all of, the prosecutions brought under RoRA S.5 are detected on exiting.
While Case Law from higher Courts may be limited in scope, it certainly does include detection during travel. In fact, the crucial decision in Bremme v Dubery was to accept that 'a person is still travelling for the purposes of the RoRA S5 . . . after he has aliighted from his train and before he passes the ticket barrier' and thereby defining the scope of S.5 to extend beyond actual travel - I think this is the correct way to approach your question. This scope was clarified further in Murphy v Verati 1967: 'as long as the person is in the process of arriving . . . he is still travelling'.

 

[Deerfold]

I was hoping that as I have tickets for every journey for the months of March, April and May to hand, with all relevant receipts, that this would be sufficient proof that there was never any intent to dodge the fare.

If you only do the trip a couple of times a week I doubt that'd help - and showing you have fares for a couple of days a week may *look like* you've managed to evade paying on the other days in those weeks. You know you don't travel every day, but they don't.

 

[island]

Well they can't prosecute at all, since they have dealt with the incident via a PF.

That is incorrect. A TOC may cancel a PF (refunding any monies paid) and prosecute instead, at any point within the usual six-month limit.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That is incorrect. A TOC may cancel a PF (refunding any monies paid) and prosecute instead, at any point within the usual six-month limit.

I don't think I understand the point being made here. Is the word 'and' trying to imply a necessary condition (between a PF and a criminal offence)? If so, where does that come from?

 

[tony_mac]

I don't think I understand the question, but the previous statement seemed quite clear to me.

If you have paid a penalty fare then the TOC can still change their mind and bring proceedings, but they would have to refund the penalty fare if they did so.

 

[island]

I don't think I understand the point being made here. Is the word 'and' trying to imply a necessary condition (between a PF and a criminal offence)? If so, where does that come from?

Let me try to be more clear to avoid any misunderstanding.

A TOC which (as has happened in this thread) has issued a Penalty Fare Notice to person P in connection with a ticketing issue, which I shall call Incident I, may choose to lay information before the Magistrates Court and commence a prosecution for an Offence it alleges was committed in incident I assuming it does so within the prescribed time limit. If it does*, it becomes liable to repay to Person P the amount of the Penalty Fare, if it was paid, or Person P ceases to be liable to pay the Penalty Fare, if it was not.

The said TOC may, as an alternative, pursue the PFN as a civil debt.

What the TOC may not do is prosecute for an Offence based on Incident I whilst also enforcing the PFN. In other words, if a PFN has been issued for incident I and the TOC now wishes to prosecute instead, it is liable to cancel/refund the PFN*. This is in line with Regulation 10 (1) of SI 1994/576.

It is, needless to say, possible for an Offence to be committed and prosecuted without liability to or issue of a PFN arising, and I am sure you were not trying to suggest that I was previously expressing the reverse of this as a fact.

*Assuming the Offence being prosecuted is one referred to in Regulation 10 (2) of SI 1994/576

Edit: tony_mac has expressed my point in a far less prolix post. Please read his instead.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thanks, that's okay.
I would have preferred to express the 'either/or' from the passenger's point of view, rather than an 'and' from the Railway's, but we're in agreement. It is the passenger who is relieved of the possibility of liability for both payment of a PF and answering a prosecution for the same matter. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in practice, the actual repayment followed some time later.

 

[jb]

Wish I'd said "won't" rather than "can't" :roll:

But then someone would probably say "why didn't you say 'probably won't'"

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Wish I'd said "won't" . . . .

Yes, this is exactly the point.
There is nothing in the OP's reports that could lead any of us to imagine that the Company might wish to instigate proceedings against him. Nothing remotely close to that possibility.

 

[island]

Yes, this is exactly the point.
There is nothing in the OP's reports that could lead any of us to imagine that the Company might wish to instigate proceedings against him. Nothing remotely close to that possibility.

Assuming, of course, that he pays the Penalty Fare!