Potential Prosecution Error over invalid ticket

[Nick_J]

Needed on Sunday 8th December to meet with Friends 13.00 at Finsbury park.

Checked FCC website at 10.30 approx. - info was no train disruption and the 12.16 train from Potters Bar was running (est arrival Finsbury Par 12.38).
Arrived Potters Bar 12.00 - train cancelled and next two were replacement bus services - earliest est arrival at Fins Park ~ 14.00! (also at this point I overheard someone who had purchased tickets saying that ticket were valid on LT for the day)

Left station and phoned my wife requesting lift to Cockfosters - which she did. At Cockfosters I purchased a ticket at £8.90 - a travelcard to get to Finsbury park - arrived 13.20 this way. (Note that my wife giving me a lift saved the £2.40 additional bus fare from PB to Cockfosters) (For those not familiar with the area Potters Bar is outside North London and served by FCC train to Finsbury Park - Cockfoster is 4 miles into London and top of the Piccadilly line)

Spent afternoon as planned and returned to Finsbury Park~ 18.00. Trains were now running to Potters Bar and I used FCC to travel back to Potters Bar (Yes - using the ticket I had purchased from Cockfosters) Needles to say I was stopped at PBR and told ticket was not valid - I argued the point refused to pay the penalty fare - at this stage they would not take or even look at my travelcard.

They took my details and during this a second inspector snatched the Travelcard ticket from my hand saying - needed as evidence They retained the ticket pointing to a bye law that stated any ticket issued remained property of the rail company.

Have now received a letter from FCC stating intention to prosecute and asking for "my side of the story"

I believe that normal custom and practise whenever there is service disruption is to allow interchange of tickets (FCC-LU) - and I have already paid a higher ticket price than I normally would have - hardly fare evasion!

 

[yorkie]

Regarding the bus.... if it accepts Travelcards it wouldn't have cost you more (Potters Bar station can sell you a Zone 1-6 Travelcard), is that a 298? If so Travelcards are valid.

Travelcards are valid on LU and National Rail services; so there is already inter-availability there.

How did you pay more? You didn't pay for a Potters Bar to Zones 1-6; you only paid for Zones 1-6.

It's not the case that disruption means that the boundary of Zone 6 to Potters Bar becomes free; a ticket was required for that.

As you chose not to pay the fare, then a Penalty Fare becomes chargeable, as you chose not to pay that, you now look set to require to seek the assistance of a solicitor to represent you in Court.

You could try arguing that you did not intend to evade the fare, but FCC could choose to prosecute under Bylaw 18 which does not require intent anyway.

You could back down and offer to settle out of court, but I guess you're not looking to do that, by the sound of it?

 

[MikeWh]

How did you pay more? You didn't pay for a Potters Bar to Zones 1-6; you only paid for Zones 1-6.

I'll take an educated guess. PBR-FPK off-peak return is £7.80 (or £5.50 super off-peak). Cockfosters to Finsbury Park would be over £10 cash return hence the travelcard. If FCC tickets were being accepted on LU then you should have bought the paper return at Potters Bar and used that from Cockfosters, thus allowing you to get home the usual way.

It sounds like there's been a failure of communication, though how to mitigate that at this stage I'll have to leave to others.

 

[bb21]

I believe that normal custom and practise whenever there is service disruption is to allow interchange of tickets (FCC-LU)

Was that the case on this occasion? Did you enquire at Potters Bar station? Even if so, you didn't purchase a ticket for FCC anyway so I don't see how this argument is at all relevant. The disruption is on FCC while LU were running a normal service, so I don't see how you can expect LU tickets to be accepted on FCC, let alone outside the zones.

If not, then you have even less of a case. You paid for a Zones 1-6 Off-Peak Day Travelcard, and that is not valid on FCC beyond Hadley Wood. If you have lived in Hatfield for a while, I would expect that you would be aware of this. Whether that is in itself more expensive than a return from Potters Bar to Finsbury Park is irrelevant. You did not have a valid ticket to return to Potters Bar on, unless you use buses.

As yorkie said above, you could have bought the Travelcard at Potters Bar station and used it on the 298 to Cockfosters or the 313 to Enfield, which would still have only cost you £8.90 (but you need to take the bus back too).

As things stand, a Penalty Fare was the correct course of action. You refused it, hence this is now being taken further.

 

[455driver]

Surely the thread title should be changed because his ticket wasnt valid!

 

[island]

Sorry, but your ticket was not valid and as you chose not to deal with it at the time by paying a penalty fare, which is for people who make genuine mistakes, you are now in bigger trouble. FCC might be willing to accept a payment in lieu of prosecution but you won't have much change out of £100 rather than the £20 you could have paid at the time.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The 8th December was the day when the tunnels into Kings Cross were being sorted out, with a skeleton service running to Kings Cross. Everything else was being terminated at Finsbury Park or at Moorgate.

The cross-validity of tickets with London Underground was only between Finsbury Park and London Kings Cross. See here.

Had you asked at the station- either at Potters Bar or at Finsbury Park on your return journey- you would have been told this.

The Penalty Fare was the correct course of action. You should have paid it and appealed if you'd felt so strongly. You didn't, probably because the RPI implied FCC "would just write to you", but that doubles your error. They have written to you. I would suggest you accept your mistake and try and negotiate a settlement, but this is going to be more costly than £20.

 

[transmanche]

The cross-validity of tickets with London Underground was only between Finsbury Park and London Kings Cross.

So in reality there was no special ticket acceptance in place at all - as tickets are always inter-available between King's Cross and Finsbury Park.

 

[34D]

I believe that normal custom and practise whenever there is service disruption is to allow interchange of tickets (FCC-LU) - and I have already paid a higher ticket price than I normally would have - hardly fare evasion!

Finding out this could be key to getting a goodwill gesture from FCC.

 

[yorkie]

Surely the thread title should be changed because his ticket wasnt valid!

Agreed - this has been done, so it's now correct. (We don't always see such requests in the threads, so feel free to use the report button ).

I think the posts above sum up the situation. I'd be backing down and seeking an out of court settlement, if it was me.

 

[revenueadvice]

To be honest if the OP had come and explained the situation to me. i.e his outward journey was disrupted and was now returning home I would probably have sold an extension ticket from zone 6 but then I try and see things from a customer service point of view as well.

I would write back and explain in full why you made the journey that you did. I would expect them to take a cautious approach as you had initially been displaced due to service disruption. Offer to pay the outstanding fare. If they still want to prosecute then get onto customer services.

I know that technically the RPI was correct to charge a penalty and then go for an MG11 once the penalty fare was declined but FCC are trying to make their RPI's more customer focused and discretion is the key.

The MG11 sent in probably says on it "Passenger travelled beyond validity and refused a penalty fare." This is now your chance to fully explain the circumstances. We normally would not penalty fare people during disruption and use a lot of discretion. Unfortunately there are some RPI's who think their job is to do as many penalties as possible.

Personally I think it would be harsh to continue with a prosecution once you have explained it all properly but that is just my opinion and like I said technically they are correct. You didn't have a valid ticket and could probably have purchased an extension ticket before you traveled back on your return journey.

Anyway good luck!

 

[455driver]

If they still want to prosecute then get onto customer services.

Why?

This has nothing to do with customer (dis)service.

 

[transmanche]

This has nothing to do with customer (dis)service.

It has everything to do with customer service.

Yes the customer made some incorrect assumptions (e.g about mutual ticket acceptance) and yes the customer made some poor choices (e.g. buying a ticket from Cockfosters rather than Potters Bar and refusing the PF rather than accepting it and appealing it). But in any other industry, such similar issues could be resolved amicably. Only on the railway do such things escalate to prosecution.

 

[bb21]

Another thing that could have affected the decision whether to use discretion at the time was the passenger's attitude. I am not speculating at what happened, but a poor attitude could persuade an RPI not to exercise discretion generally speaking.

But in any other industry, such similar issues could be resolved amicably. Only on the railway do such things escalate to prosecution.

That is a pretty big generalisation.

 

[island]

That is a pretty big generalisation.

Indeed. See what happens if you try to bring something invalid through airport security and what it escalates into.

 

[transmanche]

Indeed. See what happens if you try to bring something invalid through airport security and what it escalates into.

Quite apart from the ridiculous of the comparison, it's not quite exactly the same sodt of customer-supplier relationship is it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is a pretty big generalisation.

Indeed, but a fair one.

 

[455driver]

Indeed, but a fair one.

Maybe in your mind!

We were not there so we do not know what was said by whom and in what sort of manner it was said, but it is clear from what is posted is that the OP was incorrect in his assumptions re ticket acceptance (although how he could assume that a zonal ticket would ever be valid outside the zones is lost on me) and he was offered (and declined) the correct penalty fare. Once the PF has been declined there is only one way it can go, and it has gone that way!

To argue over semantics is not really relevant (or helpful) because the OP decided which way this was going when they refused the PF!

 

[transmanche]

We were not there so we do not know what was said by whom and in what sort of manner it was said

No we don't.

So wouldn't it be much better if the situation was resolved as it would be in any other customer-supplier relationship? Rather than an automatic escalation to legal action?

 

[455driver]

No we don't.

So wouldn't it be much better if the situation was resolved as it would be in any other customer-supplier relationship? Rather than an automatic escalation to legal action?

Depends what was said, in what way by whom!

Hypothetically-

Do think a ticket dodger who threatens to beat the cr#p out of the staff should be treated in the same way as a person who is fully compliant?

I dont!

Please note I am in no way insinuating that the OP behaved in any particular way, he has been asked for his version of events only and no action has been taken by the TOC against him.

 

[transmanche]

Depends what was said, in what way by whom!

So you think prosecution is the best way to deal with customer service issues? Interesting...

 

[455driver]

So you think prosecution is the best way to deal with customer service issues? Interesting...

Can you show me where I said that please? :roll:
You really do like to turn things around dont you, maybe we should concoct a name for flipping things around so its not the passengers fault (even though it quite clearly is)?

How does Transmanched sound, it has quite a nice ring to it-

I have tried to Transmanche <a TOC> but they found me out, what can I do!

 

[Deerfold]

Indeed. See what happens if you try to bring something invalid through airport security and what it escalates into.

We took my mother in law abroad about a year ago. It was some years since she had last flown so we went over in detail what she was and was not allowed to have in hand luggage.

On passing through security it became apparent she'd taken very little notice of us and had packed at least four prohibited items.

We were delayed a little whilst security carried out a thorough search of her bag but there were no thorough searches of her or any threat of legal action.

 

[transmanche]

Can you show me where I said that please?

I said "So wouldn't it be much better if the situation was resolved as it would be in any other customer-supplier relationship? Rather than an automatic escalation to legal action?"

Then you replied "Depends what was said, in what way by whom!"

I'm going to ignore your hypothetical scenario part, as that was added was added after my reply - and is clearly dealing with something that is outside a normal customer-supplier transaction.

Remember the point at hand was a misunderstanding; how a customer did something 'wrong' by misunderstanding the situation and what was the correct thing to do in that situation. That's a customer service issue.

Yet you think it "depends what was said, in what way by whom!" as to whether or not it should automatically be escalated to legal action? Surely it's always better to try and resolve customer service issues amicably before resorting to prosecution?

Oh and name calling? How infantile... :roll:

 

[Greenback]

Only on the railway do such things escalate to prosecution.

The vast majority of ticket irregularities that occur every day are surely settled amicably otherwise the courts would be swamped with prosecutions.

Discretion is often shown when passengers have the worng ticket, have been overcarried, or made any number of mistakes or poor decisions.

Excesses can be charged, penalty fares can be raised, UPFN's given out.

Even in this case, matters have not yet escalated to prosecution, depsite the OP being given a chance tor ectify matters and turning down that opportunity. If FCC were dead set on prosecution, they would have gone straight for it, without giving the passenger a further opportunity to explain what had happened.

 

[revenueadvice]

This is a customer service issue. There was clearly some major issues in the morning when the passenger first arrived at the station. Whether it was disruption or engineering works. They then had to change their plans and go out of their way to another station. They have then mistakenly thought that ticket acceptance would be in place for displaced passengers. The RPI could have used discretion after hearing all of this and it would have been good customer service to just ask for the fare to be paid.

I know if I am manning a gateline and major disruption starts, a lot of the time we will open up the barriers and just start helping passengers and answering questions. Revenue protection duties go to one side and we worry about trying to help as much as is possible during major disruption. So from my point of view if someone comes up and says as a result of disruption this morning I had to travel miles to another station but I am now returning to my local station I think some discretion is in order.

Clearly though if when told the ticket wasn't valid the OP gave a lot of attitude to the RPI then any good will may have gone out of the window.

 

[455driver]

I said Surely it's always better to try and resolve customer service issues amicably before resorting to prosecution?

So you do think an aggressive/argumentative person should be treated in the same way as a compliant person. Interesting!

Do you work in a customer facing role or are you looking at this as an outsider?

 

[transmanche]

The vast majority of ticket irregularities that occur every day are surely settled amicably otherwise the courts would be swamped with prosecutions.

You'll have noticed that I didnt say all ticket irregularities.

In many (in fact perhaps most) other industries, no matter what the irregularity (and by irregularity, I'm excluding deliberate fraud or theft) prosecution would never be an available option.

 

[Greenback]

I said "So wouldn't it be much better if the situation was resolved as it would be in any other customer-supplier relationship? Rather than an automatic escalation to legal action?"

Do you have any suggestions how to achieve that when the passenger has refused the opportunity presented to them?

Remember the point at hand was a misunderstanding; how a customer did something 'wrong' by misunderstanding the situation and what was the correct thing to do in that situation. That's a customer service issue.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the passenger be told what they have misunderstood and no further action taken. This overlooks the fact that it is very difficult to tell the genuine mistake from the chancer. Add this tot he fact that significant numbers are detected with no ticket, or the wrong ticket, and the problem is not a simple one.

Yet you think it "depends what was said, in what way by whom!" as to whether or not it should automatically be escalated to legal action? Surely it's always better to try and resolve customer service issues amicably before resorting to prosecution?

No legal action has been started yet. Nor would it have been if the OP had accepted the PF, in this example.

There has to be some sort of path for the industry to follow towards legal action, even if it may occasionally be seen as inappropriate to do so by some.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You'll have noticed that I didnt say all ticket irregularities.

In many (in fact perhaps most) other industries, no matter what the irregularity (and by irregularity, I'm excluding deliberate fraud or theft) prosecution would never be an available option.

The great difficulty on the railway is deciding what is deliberate fraud or theft rather than a mistake. It is the role of the court to judge these matters should the TOC decide there is sufficient doubt.

I'd be interested to know how you would advocate proceeding in the majority of cases where it's impossible to tell if someone is deliberately cheating the system as opposed to having made an honest mistake. Oh, and don't forget that PF's are intended to deal with hoenst mistakes, so what would you propose for a situation (not necessairly this one) where a passenger has been found with an invalid ticket and refuses the PF?

Actually, this is all probably best left for a new thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clearly though if when told the ticket wasn't valid the OP gave a lot of attitude to the RPI then any good will may have gone out of the window.

I think this is what 455driver meant when he referred to no one knowing exactly what happened.

 

[transmanche]

So you do think an aggressive/argumentative person should be treated in the same way as a compliant person. Interesting!

I'm not sure why you're trying to drag irrelevant topics such as aggressive people into this situation, as there's no suggestion that the OP was aggressive. Remember, as you said, we were not there.

Do you work in a customer facing role or are you looking at this as an outsider?

I've spent over 20 years working in customer-facing roles. It's taught me it's far better to deal with issues in a sympathetic manner, especially where it's evident that there's been some confusion. It's taught me that simply telling the customer what their obligations are under the contract will unlikely to result in a good outcome. And it's taught me to treat people as I would want to be treated - as a human being.

 

[455driver]

So your way is to bend over backwards and give the customer what they want even if they are in the wrong! :roll: