Penalty Fare

[sheff1]

You wouldn't have been arrested over the wrong ticket. You would have been arrested for failure to supply your details. You may want to look at Byelaw 23.

Byelaw 23 requires the provision of name and address not "details". Post #50 states that the OP was not asked to provide name and address just "further details".

 

[Llanigraham]

Byelaw 23 requires the provision of name and address not "details". Post #50 states that the OP was not asked to provide name and address just "further details".

And I am sure that many people would consider "further details" to include name and address.

 

[Hadders]

Northern are normally pretty quick at sending out letters, usually 3-4 weeks although they do have up to six months.

Sadly, train companies deal with thousands of these sort of cases at any one time so you just have to wait for your case to come to the top of the queue.

 

[ElJB1661]

Northern are normally pretty quick at sending out letters, usually 3-4 weeks although they do have up to six months.

Sadly, train companies deal with thousands of these sort of cases at any one time so you just have to wait for your case to come to the top of the queue.

That’s good to know and very helpful, thank you.

 

[RPI]

Failing to give your details when asked is being difficult.

It certainly can be seen that way, but from what the OP has said, it wasn't explained what the details were required for. As an RPI myself, I wouldn't ever attempt to obtain someone's details without explaining exactly what I need them for, if it's as the OP stated and that it was a case of "would you like to provide any further details", then I'd question whether that can actually be regarded as actual asking for the passengers details. Again, we only have the one side here.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

In these circumstances the staffs own body cameras can benefit passengers

So op says was asked for further details, and says was not explained what issue was fully with ticket

Very possible that in the usual brief witness statement that staff provide will say something along lines of, "explained ticket not valid, asked for name and address, customer refused"

That statement would be incorrect going by the op but by the staff members recollection of exactly what was said they may in good faith(possibly bad faith too) say that's how the conversation went

 

[skyhigh]

In these circumstances the staffs own body cameras can benefit passengers

If it was activated.

 

[Haywain]

If it was activated.

And it doesn't sound like the sort of interaction which would have caused that to happen.

 

[Wolfie]

It certainly can be seen that way, but from what the OP has said, it wasn't explained what the details were required for. As an RPI myself, I wouldn't ever attempt to obtain someone's details without explaining exactly what I need them for, if it's as the OP stated and that it was a case of "would you like to provide any further details", then I'd question whether that can actually be regarded as actual asking for the passengers details. Again, we only have the one side here.

That's fair comment.

 

[Haywain]

The arrest (and that would be a very unusual outcome) would be for failing to provide a name and address, not for the ticketing offence.

And it's much more likely that the police would attend and advise them to provide the requested details, only arresting them if they then failed to do so.

 

[Wolfie]

And it's much more likely that the police would attend and advise them to provide the requested details, only arresting them if they then failed to do so.

I must admit that l was taking that as a given. However given @ElJB1661's other comments l concede that was perhaps unwise.

 

[6Gman]

And it's much more likely that the police would attend and advise them to provide the requested details, only arresting them if they then failed to do so.

Indeed.