Pre-Court Settlement Offer help

[luket96]

Hello everyone,

I have recently received a Pre-Court Settlement Offer from GWR Prosecutions unit, stating that a revenue protection inspector reported me for attempting to travel without a valid ticket for my journey. The letter says that they are willing to offer me the chance to make a payment to avoid court which is £97.

I was travelling from ST ERTH to PLYMOUTH although I usually travel from HAYLE. Initially, I didn’t realise the train was not going stop at HAYLE. So I had to get from Hayle to St Erth to catch the train causing me to run late. When I got to ST ERTH station I had about 4-5 minutes to spare before the train was due to arrive. I went into the ticket office to purchase a ticket for the train, there were two ticket windows one was completely closed and the other there was no attendant present. There are also no automated machines at this station. In the open window was this sign I have posted below.

I took this picture a week after the event occurred, I apologise for the microphone obstructing some of the words. it explains that station staff have to carry out train dispatch duties and that the ticket offices may be often unattended, it also says that if you are travelling immediately you may purchase your ticket on the train. As I usually travel from HAYLE where there are no ticket purchasing facilities this seemed normal to me so I got on the train when it arrived.

Once on the train, i spotted a man with a ticket machine who I assumed was the ticket inspector but turned out to be an RPI, when I asked to purchase a ticket he explained who he was and took my details, read me my rights and did a short interview, during which I explained the events above, however, due to the stress and embarrassment of the situation (he wasn't exactly discreet) I forgot to mention the sign I saw at ST ERTH. After the interview, he said he would write up a report and I would receive a letter in the post within 10 days.

I don't feel I have done anything wrong as I did what the sign said I could and yet I am being punished by having to pay a settlement or face court. What do you guys think I should do? should I just pay or should I chase it up further? I am worried that if I do contact them and push it further they will just take me to court anyway. They also left no contact information on the letter so if anyone has that and could pass it on I would be grateful.

Thank you for reading my post, and sorry if I left out any important details.

 

[gray1404]

Write back explaining that you started your journey at Hayle, an unmanned station, you attempted to buy your ticket when changing at St Earth but the sign was in the window. Enclose that photo. Then you tried to buy on the train but the inspector took your details. Keep it brief and enclose a cheque for the fare and keep a copy. The RPI should have sold you a ticket.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Write back explaining that you started your journey at Hayle, an unmanned station, you attempted to buy your ticket when changing at St Earth but the sign was in the window. Enclose that photo. Then you tried to buy on the train but the inspector took your details. Keep it brief and enclose a cheque for the fare and keep a copy. The RPI should have sold you a ticket.

I think in fact the OP wanted to use Hayle but there was no train so he went to St Erth, which is actually further away from his destination but still in the locality, where he was a bit close to the train's departure time. He was unable to purchase a ticket there and followed the instructions in the window. He should not mention (i) that he was running late because that gives them a chance to say he should leave enough time, which in fact he did as there were no ticket-issuing facilities available; or (ii) that he wanted to travel from Hayle as that's irrelevant.

 

[gray1404]

Yes, I agree. They went to St Erth and presented themselves at the booking office, but there was a written GWR notice saying to pay on the train. They followed the instructions and had their details taken when they tried to buy their ticket on the train, the RPI was in the wrong.

 

[falcon]

The thing that worries me about this is how did you fail to tell the RPI on the train that the reason you don't have a ticket is because there was a notice telling you to get on the train without one. It is the sailient point.

You say you " you explained the events" so how do you explain them but mis out the part about the sign?

If you do not pay and go to court to defend the matter you would have to give evidence and be cross examined on what you say. See above for one of the questions you would likely be asked.

 

[gray1404]

I am assuming that on the train the OP would have said something to the effect of: the ticket office was closed, there was no one in the booking office or something similar. Surely....

However, if not, it still does not alter the fact the there was no opportunity to purchase and there was still a sign expressly saying to buy the ticket on the train AND the OP did follow these instructions and try to buy the ticket on the train.

I am sorry but if there is a sign saying one should buy on the train, it really must be a massive shock to, upon doing so, be asked for your details, cautioned and asked a load of questions like you are trying to dodge your fare.

 

[najaB]

I don't feel I have done anything wrong as I did what the sign said I could and yet I am being punished by having to pay a settlement or face court. What do you guys think I should do? should I just pay or should I chase it up further?

If the sign was up was there a working ticket vending machine (TVM)?

 

[cuccir]

If the sign was up was there a working ticket vending machine (TVM)?

There are also no automated machines at this station.

This is also supported by National Rail Enquiries, which states there are no TVMs

 

[cuccir]

As others have said - write back, enclosing a copy of the picture. Miss out all the stuff about wanting to travel from Hayle - it's confusing. It took me a few reads to understand your post, so once you've written your letter look through it or ask someone else to look through it. You should only owe GWR the cost of the ticket for the journey you made, and nothing more.

 

[najaB]

This is also supported by National Rail Enquiries, which states there are no TVMs

I thought that was the case but wanted to be 100% sure about it. In that case the OP has done nothing wrong and should decline the offer to settle and request that they either drop the case on payment of any outstanding fare or proceed to court.

 

[Clip]

Its worth noting that the sign in the picture in question was taken a week after the event so there is no evidence apart from the OPs claim that the said sign was already up on the day in question. And by simply failing to mention that this sign was displayed whilst being questioned?

If the staff member was doing dispatch duties then with 4-5 minutes spare till the train comes why did they not speak to them either about the situation? Or the guard manning the train before they got on(I am aware you don't have to but it all helps to build a solid defence should this ever happen to anyone and is what I would be doing)?

 

[gray1404]

Write your letter as advised. Keep it simple and brief. Enclose a copy of the notice that was up.

 

[Clip]

Write your letter as advised. Keep it simple and brief. Enclose a copy of the notice that was up.

they didn't take a picture of the notice that was alleged to be up though

 

[thejuggler]

When the photo was taken doesn't matter - it is not about the OP proving innocence. GWR have to prove their case.

The OP is stating they went to buy a ticket and there was a sign in the window. As evidence a photo of the sign in question would be shown. This proves that at times at that station it is not possible to buy a ticket at the station and the advice is to buy on the train. This is what the OP tried to do.

It is then down to GWR to prove that this is unreliable evidence - either the sign doesn't exist or they have evidence that at the time the OP tried to buy a ticket the sign wasn't showing.

I agree with others simple letter:

I went to buy a ticket.
This sign was in the window
I couldn't buy on train
Find enclosed the fare in full and final settlement of the matter.

 

[gray1404]

Yes.

The OP confirmed that the notice was up on the day. They have since taken a photo of it so they have a copy of what was up. There is therefore nothing wrong with them enclosing a copy as it is the same notice that was up on the day of travel. The OP is still telling the truth therefore and providing a copy of what was up.

It is important the letter is simple and to the point and does not complicate things in the slightest. There is nothing more that can be added to this now until either
a. the OP puts a copy of their draft letter up for proof reading, or
b. GWR send a further reply

 

[luket96]

hi guys, thanks for all the advice. I will draft up a letter as soon as I can

 

[falcon]

This sign thing is relevant in the respect that there will be a question as to if it was there on the day of the alleged offence.

The problem is that the photo of the sign on a day other than the day in question only proves one thing in law- That there was a sign there on THAT day. It is not proof at all that there was a sign on the date of the allege offence. It is however evidence that a sign is used to allow people to board trains and buy a ticket on the train.

That's it everything will revolve around this sign as that is the authority to travel without buying a ticket.

It is a fact that the OP did not have a ticket. Once that has been established HE needs to offer a defence.

The defence he has offered at the time of questioning does not mention a sign.

At a later date a photograph of a sign taken on a different day some two weeks after has been produced with the defence (which was not put at the time of questioning by the RPO) that the sign was there also on the date of the offence.

A court would have to consider why the defendant did not mention such a sailiant point "that there was a sign" when question only a very short period after the event by the RPO.

If the defendant gave sworn evidence that a sign was there normally that evidence would need to be contradicted for a prosecution to succeed.

It maybe that the TOC will confirm that a notice system is and was in use on that day in which case there should be no prosecution.

It should be noted that the RPO did not have the information about the notice at the ticket office because the OP did not mention it so one would expect to be reported in those circumstances.

If the matter went to court and it was established that there never was a sign on the day in question. The OP will not be a happy bunny.

 

[Polarbear]

I've been in a similar situation when using Merseyrail. I used Spital station, which is normally staffed, but on one occasion, there was a sign posted saying to buy tickets at the destination. Being as Merseyrail operates a Penalty Fare scheme, I was a bit concerned when I exited at James Street, but the RPI's knew that Spital wasn't staffed on that occasion (one quick phone call did the trick), and I just paid the regular fare.

In the OP's case, I would have expected the absence of any retail staff to have been mentioned in the conversation with the on-board RPI, and a similar call to be made to confirm the position with control.

 

[MG11]

I've been in a similar situation when using Merseyrail. I used Spital station, which is normally staffed, but on one occasion, there was a sign posted saying to buy tickets at the destination. Being as Merseyrail operates a Penalty Fare scheme, I was a bit concerned when I exited at James Street, but the RPI's knew that Spital wasn't staffed on that occasion (one quick phone call did the trick), and I just paid the regular fare.

In the OP's case, I would have expected the absence of any retail staff to have been mentioned in the conversation with the on-board RPI, and a similar call to be made to confirm the position with control.

Revenue Protection Officers have access to real time information regarding ticket purchasing facilities at each station.

I too wonder why the OP never mentioned the sign at St Erth during his interview with the Officer. I am wondering if the OP saw the sign at a later date and is now deciding to use it as part of their defense.

 

[Gnasher11]

To be fair, that sign is frequently in use at St Erth, and whilst the station has recently undergone a makeover the promised TVM has still not been installed, as staff have tourists to deal with even at this time of year, despatch of trains can often take up more time than usual, the Station is also terminus for the St Ives bay line, and has no lift, so station staff are not unknown to assist with baggage and platform transfer.

 

[falcon]

Revenue Protection Officers have access to real time information regarding ticket purchasing facilities at each station.

I too wonder why the OP never mentioned the sign at St Erth during his interview with the Officer. I am wondering if the OP saw the sign at a later date and is now deciding to use it as part of their defense.

Gad Blimey ! The blaggard I would never of thought of that! The things some people will do! Shocking.

 

[najaB]

The problem is that the photo of the sign on a day other than the day in question only proves one thing in law- That there was a sign there on THAT day. It is not proof at all that there was a sign on the date of the allege offence. It is however evidence that a sign is used to allow people to board trains and buy a ticket on the train.

If the sign is in regular use it introduces a reasonable doubt - the TOC would need to provide evidence to show that it definitely wasn't on display on the day.